A History of Mosaics [reprint 1935 ed.] 9780878170012, 0878170014

Citation preview

A HISTORY

OF

MOSAICS

A

HISTORY

OF

MOSAICS by EDGAR

WATERMAN

PORTER

ANTHONY

SARGENT

II BEACON STREET, BOSTON, U.S.A.

COPYRIGHT,

1935

BY

Porter

SARGENT

PRINTED IN USA.

To A. KINGSLEY

PORTER

and Lucy KQiNcsLEv PogTER

PREFACE No general history of mosaics has been written since Gerspach's

little book, La Mosaique, appeared over half a century ago, and that was never translated into English.

Mosaics, for the most part, have been

treated in general histories of art or painting. They deserve to be studied for themselves, and there ought surely to be a wider knowledge of one of the greatest artistic expressions of the early Christian period and the

Middle Ages.

It seems, moreover, worth while to continue their history

to tbe present day, rather than to terminate it abruptly at the point when

they ceased to be zsthetically good, especially when we consider the revival of interest in the art, as an art and not a craft, that has occurred in recent years. A word as to the illustrations. The photographs have been chosen to show the best and the most characteristic of all the earlier mosaics

of the great periods, and to show selected examples of later work in order to give an idea of the continuity of development. Mosaics, even more than painting or sculpture, lose in reproduction. They ought, of

course, to be seen in place, in their architectural setting where the subdued light brings out the glowing, vibrating color. They cannot be well studied in museums, and, fortunately, very few of them have found there way there. But although photographs may be inadequate, they are usually better than the falsely colored reproductions which are

sometimes published. not be included.

It is to be regretted that more illustrations could

A glance at the notes and bibliography will show how great is the debt I owe to the researches and critical judgments of the many scholars,

both of the past and the present, who have written about mosaics. I crave indulgence in advance for those instances where I may have inadvertently failed to give due credit for sources of information.

I have

tried to assemble as complete a bibliography as possible, for, as far as

8

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

I know, this has never been done before for mosaics. As a good many items have now been largely superseded, I have attempted to indicate the most important and essential material in the notes. Without the excellent photographs of Alinari, Anderson, Brogi, Sebah and Joaillier, Marguerite van Berchem, Thomas Whittemore, and others too numerous

to mention, it would have been impossible to illustrate this book. I wish to thank especially Mr. and Mrs. Bernhard Berenson, as well as Miss Niki Mariano and the Baroness Anrep for their unfailing

interest and help and for the delightful hours I have spent in the library of *ITatti" gathering material. Miss Marguerite van Berchem graciously read a part of my manuscript and gave valuable suggestions. To

many friends in Rome I am under deep obligation; above all, to Mrs. S. Arthur Strong, to Commendatore Biagio Biagetti, Director of the Vatican

Studio of Mosaic, to Dr. Randall Maclver, to the Countess Caroline Lanckoronska of the Polish Academy, and to the late Professor Ernst Steinmann, Director of the Biblioteca Herziana. To Professor Lawrence Moore of Robert College I am indebted for the great kindness he showed me during my recent visit to Constantinople. I am most grateful to

Mrs. William H. Moore and Miss Margaret Enders for procuring the photograph of the mosaic at Marienburg. I cannot thank Professor Paul J. Sachs, Miss Elizabeth Clarke, Miss E. Louise Lucas and other members of the staff of the Fogg Museum, enough, for their constant help and kindness in connection with my work. I first became interested in the study of mosaics while a pupil of the late A. Kingsley Porter and it is due to him more than to anyone else that this book has been written. EDGAR

Manchester-by-the-Sea Massachusetts

June, 1935

WATERMAN

ANTHONY

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS PAGE

25

I. THE ORIGIN AND SPREAD OF Mosaic

©

Mosaics defined; one of the most widespread and earliest of techniques— Roman and Christian Mosaics only one category in this development—Earliest

mosaics:

Sumerian

mosaics

of

five thoysand years ago:—Warka—the ’al Ubaid Temple— The "Standard" of Ur—Egyptian Mosaics—Crete—Mohammedan Mosaics—Persian and Moorish Mosaic Tiles—Opus Sectile ; its relation to mosaic— Florentine and Mogul intarsia—

Early Mexican mosaics.

I.

THe

CHARACTERISTICS CHRISTIAN

AND

TECHNIQUE

OF CLASSICAL

AND

Mosaics

33

Distinguishing qualities—Primarily an architectural decoration—Comparison with painting and with stained glass— Possibilities and limitations—Technique: materials, methods and processes.

IH.

C

HerrENisTIC AND Roman

Mosaics

45

Mosaics of classical Greece; the pebble mosaics of Olynthts— Late Hellenistic and Roman pavements from Syria to Britain —Varieties of mosaic as understood by the Romans— Résumé of Roman pavements and their influence upon Early Christian mosaics— Palestine, Syria, Northern Africa— The earliest Wall mosaics—the "Silvanus" from Ostia—Catacomb mosaics— Changes brought about by the recognition of Christianity.

IV.

Roman

MosAIcs

FROM

THE

FOURTH

TO

THE

SEVENTH

CENTURIES Official recognition of the Church a great impetus to art.— Origin and development of Early Christian iconography: East-

57

A HISTORY

IO

OF MOSAICS

ern and Western influences: theories and facts.— The new iconography defined.—Lost mosaics of the Holy Land.—Santa Costanza.—Santa Pudenziana.—Santa Maria Maggiore.—Santa Sabina.—San Paolo-fuori-le-mura.— The Lateran Baptistery.— SS. Cosma e Damiano.—San Lorenzo-fuori-le-mura.—Lost mosaics: Old St. Peter's and the Lateran, Sant'Agata dei Goti, Sant'Andrea Catabarbara.—Summary of the styles.

V. Tue o

Mosaics

or

85

RAVENNA

In the sth and 6th centuries Ravenna the most important city in Italy and in the development of mosaics.— Three great personalities, Galla Placidia, Theodoric and Justinian.— The Mausoleum of Galla Placidia.—The Baptistery of the Orthodox.— Sant’Apollinare Nuovo.—San Vitale.—The Archiepiscopal Palace.—Sant'Apollinare in Classe.—The Arian Baptistery.— San Michele in Affrisco.—Lost mosaics.— The salient points of the style and their probable origin.— The influence of the style elsewhere.

VI. Ortner

EARLY

Mosarcs

TO THE city of the

SEVENTH Byzantine

IOS

CENTURY

Salonika

the second

Empire

and

its

mosaics:

St. George, St. Demetrius, the Eski-Djouma, and the

recently discovered mosaic in St. David.—Constantinople: the problem of St. Sophia, the mosaics of the Narthex.— The Church of the Holy Apostles.—Mount Sinai: the Monastery of St. Catherine.—Parenzo.-Pola: Santa Maria del Canneto.— Milan: San Lorenzo and the Chapel of St. Victor in Sant'Ambrogio.—Albenga: the Baptistery.— Casaranello.— Naples: San Giovanni in Fonte.— The lost mosaics of Nola.— Capua: San Prisco.- North Africa and Spain.—Summary of the Early Christian style in general.—Antioch as a radiating center ?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II

VII. THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES.

.

.

.

125

Jerusalem: the “Dome of the Rock".—Damascus: the Great Mosque.—Spain: the Sanctuary of the Mosque at Cordova.— The Roman group: reasons for the strong Eastern influence.— Sant'Agnese.—Oratory of St. Venantius.—Santo Stefano Rotondo.—San Pietro in Vincoli.—Oratory of John VII.—San Teodoro.—St. Sophia, Salonika.

VIII. THE RoMAN SCHOOL or THE NINTH CENTURY

.

.

141

.

155

Peculiarities of the style: Eastern and Western influences.—SS. Nereo ed Achille.—The Triclinium of the Lateran.—The Christ from the Vatican crypt.—Santa Maria in Domnica.—Santa Cecilia.—Santa Prassede.—San Marco.—Influence of the Roman School elsewhere; Germigny-des-Prés, Aix-la-Chapelle.

IX. THE

ELEVENTH

CENTURY

IN THE NEAR

East

.

The great revival in Byzantine art and the impetus given to mosaics.—' The new

style

and

its iconography

defined.— Con-

stantinople: the New Church of Basil I. and the Church of the Holy Apostles.—Cyprus : the Panagia Angelokistos, the Panagia Kanakaria.—The Lunette of Leo VI in St Sophia.— Hosios Lucas in Phocis.—Kiev: St Sophia and St. Michael.—Nicza: the Church of the Dormition.—Salonika: St. Sophia.— Chios: Nea Moni.—Macedonia: Seres.—Vatopedi: the Catholicon.— Grottaferrata.—Daphni.— Bethlehem: the Church of the Nativity.— Jerusalem : the “Dome of the Rock" and the Mosque of EI—Byzantine miniature, or portative mosaics.

X. SrciLIAN. Mosaıcs

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Saracenic and Byzantine influences under the Normans which produced the mosaics.—Cefalü.— The Martorana.— The Cap-

.

177

I2

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

pella Palatina.—Secular decoration: La Zisa and the Camera di Ruggero.—Monreale, etc.—Messina: the Cathedral; San Gregorio.— Sicilian influence on the mainland: Salerno; Capua; Santa Restituta at Naples.

XI. VENETIAN The

AND FLORENTINE Mosaics

Venetian

Genesis

cycle

School.—The

.

early work

of the narthex.—The

.

.

.

189

.

207

in St. Mark’s.—The

influence

of Venice

else-

where.—Torcello.—Murano.—SS. Maria e Donato.— Ravenna: the Madonna now in the Archiepiscopal Palace.— Trieste. Venetian influence in Milan: the apse of Sant’Ambrogio.— Venetian influence in Tuscany: the Florentine Baptistery; the Duomo;

San Miniato;

San Frediano at Lucca; the apse of the

Cathedral of Pisa.—Genoa: San Matteo.

XII.

Roman

Mosaics OF THE TWELFTH

CENTURIES

.

.

The

revival in Rome.—The

with

the

Byzantine

AND THE THIRTEENTH

.

.

.

combination

style.—San

.

.

of early

traditions

Clemente.—Santa

Francesca

Romana.—Santa Maria in Trastevere.— Christ between St. Peter and St. Paul from the Vatican crypt.—San Bartolomeo all'Isola.—Restoration

of

Paolo-fuori-le-mura.—San

the

apse

Tommaso

of in

Old

St.

Peter's.—San

Formis.—Civita

Cas-

tellana.—Spoleto: the Deesis on the facade of the Cathedral.— The

vault of the

Sancta

Sanctorum;

the

Cosmati

and

their

influence.—Santa Maria sopra Minerva; the tomb of Durande di Mende.—Santa Maria Maggiore; the tomb of Gonsalvo Rodriquez.— Palazzo Colonna: Madonna and Saints.—Santa Maria in Araceli; the Cappella di Santa Rosa; the Madonna in the lunette. —The Brooklyn Museum Madonna.—Santa Sabina; the tombstone of Munio da Zamora.—San Crisögono ; Madonna

TABLE OF CONTENTS

13

and Saints.—Jacopo Torriti; the Lateran apse; the apse of Santa Maria Maggiore. —Rusuti and the facade of Santa Maria Maggiore.—Assisi.—Cavallini; his work in Santa Maria in Trastevere.—Giotto; the '"Navicella."— Reasons for the abrupt ending of the Roman school in the early fourteenth century.

XIII. THE

FourTEENTH

CENTURY

. The Byzantine Renaissance;

.

.

.

.

.

225

character of the new style.—Con-

stantinople: the Kahrie Djami.—Arta: Church of the Parigoritissa.—The Fetiye Djami.—The changing character of mosaics and the influence of painting, etc.—St. Mark's: the Baptistery and the Chapel of St. Isidore.— The facades of the cathedrals of Orvieto and Siena.— Mosaics in Northern Europe: Prague; Marienwerder ; Marienburg.

XIV.

FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE NINETEENTH

CENTURY

235

The increasing influence of painting and the relationship of the painters of Venice and Rome to the mosaicists.—St. Marks': the Chapel of the Mascoli; Giambono.— Florence: Baldovinetti and Ghirlandaio.—Rome: Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, the Cappella di Sant'Elena.—Santa Maria del Popolo: the Chigi Chapel; Raphael and Luigi de Pace. Venice; the influence of Titian, Tintoretto and others.— The trial of 1563; the Bianchini and the Zuccati.—The lowest ebb of the art.—Revival under Leopoldo dal Pozzo.— The Vatican Studio: Muziano da Brescia. — Decoration of St. Peter's; the altars.

XV. NINETEENTH CENTURY AND MODERN Mosaics

.

.

The Romantic Movement and the new interest in the Middle Ages; the influence upon mosaics.—Mosaics and archeology; restorations.— Venice: the Salviati.—The Vatican Workshop;

249

14

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

the Restoration of St. Paul's, etc.--Other nineteenth century restorations in Italy.— The revival of interest in mosaics in Northern Europe.—Russia.— France; Belloni and the “Pompeian School"; Charles Garnier and the Paris Opéra.—Later mosaics.— Germany. — England. — America. — The revival of mosaic

as an independent

art;

influences

from

the past;

its

relation to modern painting.—Recent work in Germany, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.—England.—Recent work in America.— The

future

of mosaic

as

architectural

decoration.

NOTES

263

BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

GLOSSARY.

315

INDEX

315

ILLUSTRATIONS

333

ILLUSTRATIONS Naples Museum.

Academy

of Plato from Torre Annuziata.

(Anderson

25783) Rome.

Museo delle Terme.

Head of Medusa.

(Alinari 30169)

Pompeii. Reclining Dog. New excavations. Rome. Lateran Museum. Pavement from the Baths of Caracalla. (Moscioni 8281) Rome. Capitoline Museum. “Pliny’s Doves.” (Brogi 7109) Timgad. Pavement in “Carpet Style". Mosaique de la Piscine. Zliten

(Tripoli).

Detail of Pavement.

(Aurigemma)

Pompeii. Fountain Niche. (Brogi 5265) Naples Museum. Fountain Niche from Pompeii. Naples Rome.

Museum. Mosaic Lateran Museum.

Detail.

(Anderson 25779)

Column from Pompeii. "Silvanus" from Ostia.

(Anderson 25764) (Moscioni 2983)

Rome.

Santa Costanza.

Ciampini's Engraving of the Dome.

. Rome.

Santa Costanza.

View of the Vault.

. Rome. . Rome. . Rome.

Santa Costanza. Santa Costanza. Santa Costanza.

Detail of the Vault. (Brogi 15856) Detail of the Vault. (Brogi 15858) Leít Apse. (Alinari 28515)

. Rome.

Santa Costanza.

Right

. Rome. . Rome. Rome. . Rome.

Santa Pudenziana. Apse. (Brogi 17131) Lateran Baptistery. Apse. (Brogi 15698) Santa Maria Maggiore. General View of the Nave (Alinari 5875) Santa Maria Maggiore. Abraham and the Three Angels. (Alin-

Apse.

(Alinari 6086)

(Alinari

28516)

ari 30125)

. Rome. Santa Maria Maggiore. ari 30126) Rome. Santa Maria Maggiore. ari 30142) Rome. Santa

Maria

Maggiore.

Separation of Abraham and Lot.

(Alin-

Marriage of Moses and Sephora.

(Alin-

Triumphal

Arch.

(Anderson

17653)

. Rome.

Santa Maria Maggiore.

Detail of the Arch.

Rome.

Santa Maria Maggiore.

Detail of the Arch.

(Alinari 30121)

. Rome. Rome.

Santa Maria Maggiore. Santa Sabina. Mosaic.

Detail of the Arch. (Brogi 17982)

(Anderson 31228)

Rome.

Santa Sabina.

Ecclesia ex Circumcisione.

(Alinari

30122)

(Alinari 27956)

. Rome. . Rome. 7153)

Santa Sabina. Ciampini: Destroyed Mosaic of the Arch. San Paola fuori-le-mura. Apse and Triumphal Arch. (Alinari

. Rome.

Lateran Baptistery.

Detail of the Vault.

(Moscioni

6680)

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

. Rome.

SS. Cosma e Damiano.

Apse

and

Triumphal

Arch.

(Brogi

17082) Rome. . Rome.

SS. Cosma SS. Cosma

e Damiano. e Damiano.

Christ, Detail.

Right Half of the Apse.

(Alinari P.2.N.

SS. Cosma

e Damiano.

Left Half of the Apse.

(Alinari P.2.N.

7179) Rome. 7180) . Rome.

San Lorenzo fuori-le-mura. Triumphal Arch. (Alinari 7150) Mausoleum of Galla Placidia. Exterior. (Alinari P.ı.N. 18106) Ravenna. Mausoleum of Galla Placidia. Interior. (Alinari 18108) Mausoleum of Galla Placidia. Stags Drinking. (Alinari 18265) Ravenna. Mausoleum of Galla Placidia. St. Lawrence. (Alinari 18263) Ravenna. Mausoleum of Galla Placidia. The Good Shepherd. (AnderRavenna.

Ravenna.

. . . .

son 27656) Ravenna.

Baptistery of the Orthodox.

. Ravenna. 18229) . Ravenna. . Ravenna.

Baptistery of the Orthodox.

.

Dome.

(Alinari P.2.N.

18228)

Baptism of Christ (Alinari P.2.N.

Baptistery of the Orthodox. Interior. (Alinari P.2.N. 18043) Sant’Appollinare Nuovo. Left Wall of Nave. (Alinari P.N.ı.

18059) . Ravenna. 18058) . Ravenna. .

Ravenna.

. Ravenna.

Sant'Apollinare Nuovo.

Right Wall of Nave.

(Alinari P.N.ı.

Sant’Apollinare Nuovo. Sant'Apollinare Nuovo. Sant'Appollinare Nuovo.

Detail of Left Wall. Detail of Right Wall.

(Alinari 18233) (Alinari 42098)

The Multiplication of Bread.

(Ander-

son 27473) Sant'Apollinare Goats. (Anderson 27465) . Ravenna. Sant'Apollinare Sant'Apollinare . Ravenna. Ravenna. Sant'Apollinare . Ravenna.

Nuovo.

The Separation of the Sheep from the

Nuovo. Nuovo. Nuovo.

The Last Supper. The Kiss of Judas. Virgin Enthroned.

(Anderson 27475) (Anderson 27477) (Alinari P.2.N.

18237) Ravenna.

Sant'Apollinare Nuovo.

Christ

Sant'Apollinare Nuovo.

Portrait

Enthroned.

(Alinari

P.2.N.

18243) .

Ravenna.

of

Justinian.

(Anderson

27488) . Ravenna. .

Ravenna. Ravenna. .

Ravenna.

ari 18216)

San Vitale. San Vitale.

Christ Enthroned. (Alinari P.2.N. Vault. (Alinari P.2.N. 18222)

18223)

San Vitale. San Vitale.

St. Matthew and St. Mark. (Alinari 18033) Abel and Melchisedek, Moses and Isaiah. (Alin-

LIST OF

ILLUSTRATIONS

17

. Ravenna. San Vitale. Abraham and the Three Angels, The Sacrifice of Isaac with Jeremiah and Moses above. (Alinari 18219) . Ravenna.

San Vitale.

Soffit of the Arch.

(Alinari P.2.N.

18211)

. Ravenna. Ravenna. . Ravenna.

San Vitale. San Vitale. San Vitale.

Justinian and His Court. (Brogi 3919) Theodora and Her Court. (Brogi 3918) The Empress Theodora and Attendants.

(Alinari

18227)

. Ravenna. . Ravenna. . Ravenna.

Archiepiscopal Palace. Archiepiscopal Palace. Archiepiscopal Palace.

Vault. (Alinari 18267) Interior. (Alinari 18137) Vault and Apse. (Alinari 42124)

Ravenna.

Archiepiscopal Palace.

Busts of Female

. Ravenna.

Archiepiscopal

Christ.

. Ravenna. . Ravenna. Ravenna.

Sant'Apollinare in Classe. Sant'Apollinare in Classe. Sant'Apollinare in Classe.

Saints.

(Anderson

27366) Palace.

inari 18202) Ravenna. Sant'Apollinare in Classe.

18203) Ravenna. Ravenna.

(Alinari 42126)

Apse. (Alinari 42103) Detail, St. Ursus. (Alinari 18205) Constantine IV and Reparatus. (AlSacrifice of Melchisedek.

(Alinari

|: The Arian Baptistery. Cupola. (Alinari 18245) San Michele in Affricisco. Apse. (Kaiser Friedrich Museum,

Berlin)

. Salonika. Salonika.

St. George. St. George.

Decoration of the Dome. Detail, Leo and the

(Tsimas) Flute-Player

Philimon.

(Tsimas)

. . . .

Salonika. St. Demetrius. St. Demetrius and Two Children. (Tsimas) Salonika. St. Demetrius. St. Demetrius and the Founders. (Tsimas) Salonika. St. David. Vision of Ezechiel. (Tsimas) Constantinople. St. Sophia. Narthex. Vault. (Whittemore) Constantinople. St. Sophia. Narthex. Cross. (Whittemore) Sinai. Monastery of St. Catherine. Detail of the Apse. (Savignac)

. Parenzo. . Parenzo.

Facade. (Alinari 21227) Apse. (Alinari 21236)

Parenzo. . Parenzo.

Detail of the Apse. (Alinari 21252) Annunciation. (Alinari 21253)

Parenzo.

Visitation.

(Alinari

21254)

Milan.

San Lorenzo.

Christ and the Apostles.

. Milan.

San Lorenzo.

Apse.

(Anderson

(Anderson 12825)

12827)

. Milan. Sant'Ambrogio. Chapel of St. Victor. . Milan. Sant'Ambrogio. Chapel of St. Victor. . Albenga. Baptistery. Detail. (Wilpert)

Cupola. (Wilpert) St. Ambrose. (Wilpert)

A HISTORY

I8

95.

Casaranello.

Cupola.

(Wilpert)

96.

Naples.

Giovanni

in Fonte.

97- Naples. 98. Capua.

San

OF MOSAICS

Christ and Angel.

(Alinari 33748)

San Giovanni in Fonte. The Lion. (Anderson 25219) San Prisco. Cappella di Santa Matrona. Christ in lunette.

(Wil-

pert) 99. IOO,

IOI.

Capua. San Prisco. Cappella di Santa Matrona. The Vault. (Wilpert) Tarragona. Tombal mosaic. Jerusalem. The “Dome of the Rock.” Octagonal Arcade. Detail. (Van Berchem)

102. Jerusalem. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107.

Berchem) Jerusalem. chem) Damascus.

Damascus. Cordova.

The “Dome of the Rock.”

Circular Arcade.

The

“Dome

The

The

Great Mosque.

of the Rock.”

The Great Panel.

The Great Mosque. Mosque.

The Four Trees.

Facade of the Mihrab.

Apse.

Drum.

Detail.

Detail.

(Van

(Van

Ber-

(de Lorey)

(de Lorey)

(Senan y Gonzalez)

Rome.

Sant’Agnese.

(Brogi 15852)

108.

Rome.

San Teodoro.

109.

Rome.

Oratory of St. Venantius.

Apse

Oratory of St. Venantius.

Group of Saints on the Left.

(Brogi

Oratory of St. Venantius.

Group of Saints on the Right.

(Brogi

Apse.

(Moscioni 6682)

and

Triumphal

Arch.

(Alinari

7173) IIO.

III.

Rome. 15696) Rome.

15697) 112. 113. 114. 115.

Rome. Rome.

Santo Stefano Rotondo. Apse. (Moscioni 6705) San Pietro in Vincoli. St. Sebastian. (Moscioni 10988)

116.

Rome. Oratory of John VII. Facade of the Oratory from Ciampini. Florence. San Marco. Virgin as Orant. (Alinari 4571) Rome. Museo Petriano. Portrait of John VII. (Alinari 26381)

117.

Rome.

Museo

Rome.

Lateran Museum.

118.

119. 120. I2I. 122. 123. 124.

Petriano.

St. Peter Preaching.

(Anderson

The Washing of the Infant Christ.

29870) Rome. Santa Maria in Cosmedin. Adoration of the Magi. Salonika. St. Sophia. Virgin in the Apse. (Tsimas)

Rome. Rome. Rome. Rome.

20315)

(Alinari

(Alinari 26569)

Triclinium of the Lateran. Apse. (Alinari 17497) Vatican Crypt. Christ Blessing. (Alinari 26420) SS. Nereo ed Achille. Triumphal Arch. (Alinari 7251) Santa Prassede. The Apse and the Triumphal Arch.

17122) 125. 126.

Rome. Rome.

Santa Prassede. Santa Prassede.

The Heavenly Jerusalem. The Twenty-four Elders.

(Alinari 26707) (Alinari 26709)

(Brogi

LIST

127. 128.

129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136.

OF

ILLUSTRATIONS

Rome. Rome.

Santa Prassede. Santa Prassede.

Rome. Rome.

Santa Prassede. Female Saints. Santa Maria in Domnica. Apse.

19

Facade of the Cappella San Zeno. (Alinari 26712) Vault. (Brogi 17129) (Brogi 17125) (Anderson 2386)

Rome. Santa Cecilia. Apse. (Brogi 17062) Rome. San Marco. Apse. (Alinari 26529) Germigny-des-Pres. Apse. (Photo.Arch.photo.d’art et d'hist. 72457) Aix-la-Chapelle. Cathedral. Decoration of the Dome. (from Ciampini) Constantinople. St. Sophia. Narthex. Lunette over the Royal Door. (Whittemore) Constantinople. St. Sophia. Narthex. Lunette over the South Portal. (Whittemore.)

137. 138.

139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145.

Phocis. Phocis. Phocis.

Hosios Lucas. Hosios Lucas. Hosios Lucas.

The Pantocrator. (Diez) The Madonna and Child in the Apse. Descent of the Holy Ghost.

Kiev.

St. Sophia.

The Pantocrator.

Kiev.

St. Sophia.

Communion

(Diez)

of the Apostles.

(Diez)

Nicea.

Church

Nicea.

Church of the Dormition.

Archangels.

Nicea.

Church

Virgin as Orant.

Salonika.

of the Dormition. of the Dormition.

St. Sophia.

146.

Chios.

Nea

147.

Chios.

148.

Seres.

Moni.

Cupola.

(Diez)

Virgin of the Apse.

(Schmit)

(Schmit) (Schmit)

(Tsimas)

Baptism.

(Diez)

Nea Moni.

Anastasis.

(Diez)

Communion

of the Apostles.

(Diez)

149. Grottaferrata. Pentecost. (Moscioni 10401) 150. Grottaferrata. Deesis. (Brogi 17215) 151. Daphni. Pantocrator. 152. Daphni. Transfiguration. (Alinari 24698) 153. Daphni. Entry into Jerusalem. (Alinari 24687)

154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160.

161.

162. 163. 164.

165.

Daphni. Daphni.

Crucifixion. (Alinari 24686) Anastasis. (Alinari 24689)

Daphni. Prayer of St. Anna. (Alinari 24691) Florence. Opera del Duomo. Panels of the Twelve Feasts. Florence. Bargello. Christ. (Brogi 22169) Paris. Louvre. Transfiguration. (Giraudon 17761) Cefalà. Cathedral. Apse. (Anderson 29586) Cefalü. Cathedral Vault. (Anderson 29591) Palermo. The Martorana. Interior. (Anderson 29106) Palermo. The Martorana. Cupola. (Brogi 11369) Palermo. The Martorana. Nativity. (Brogi 11373) Palermo. The Martorana. Dormition. (Brogi 11372)

(Brogi 7675)

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

20

The Martorana. King Roger Crowned by Christ. (Brogi 11374) The Martorana. SS. James and Paul. (Anderson 29095) Cappella Palatina. Interior. (Alinari 33102) Cappella Palatina. Cupola, Christ and Archangels. (Brogi

166. 167. 168. 169.

Palermo. Palermo. Palermo. Palermo.

170. 171.

Palermo.

Cappella Palatina.

Apse,

Palermo.

Cappella Palatina.

Nave, Creation of Adam and Eve.

11391) the Pantocrator.

(Alinari

33112) (Alinari

33137) 172. 173. 174.

Palermo. Cappella Palatina. Palermo. Cappella Palatina. inari 33128) Cappella Palatina. Palermo.

Nave, Entry into Jerusalem. (Brogi 15445) Nave, Scene from the life of St. Paul. (AlNave,

Head

of

St.

Gregory.

(Anderson

29018) 175.

Cathedral. Cathedral. Cathedral. Cathedral.

Apse. (Alinari 33295) Nave, Old Testament scenes. (Alinari 33274) Nave, detail of the Creation. (Alinari 33242) William II offers the church to the Virgin. (Brogi

178.

Monreale. Monreale. Monreale. Monreale.

179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185.

Monreale. Cathedral. Christ crowning William II. (Brogi 15420) Palermo. La Zisa. (Anderson 29722) La Zisa. Detail of frieze. (Anderson 29718) Palermo. Palermo. Palace. Camera di Ruggero. (Alinari 33087) Palermo. Palace. Camera di Ruggero, detail. (Anderson 29530) Messina. Cathedral. Main Apse. (Photo. Min. della istruz. pubbl.) Museum. Virgin and Child from San Gregorio. (Anderson Messina.

176.

177.

15419)

29962) 186. 187.

188. 189.

190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196.

Salerno. Naples.

Venice. Venice. Venice. Venice.

Venice.

Cathedral.

S. St. St. St. St. St. St.

Restituta. Mark's. Mark's. Mark's. Mark's. Mark's. Mark's.

Venice. (Alinari 38676) St. Mark's. Venice. St. Mark’s. Venice. Venice. St. Mark's.

Facade.

St. Matthew.

(Anderson

26628)

Virgin and Child. (Anderson 25216) Interior. (Alinari 12377) The Ascension Cupola. (Alinari 13745) The Ascension Cupola. The Virgin. (Alinari 38677) The Pentecost Cupola. (Alinari 13742) The Christ Emmanuel Cupola. (Alinari 13746) The Christ Emmanuel Cupola, Detail of Prophets. Deesis. (Alinari 13739) Entry into Jerusalem. (Alinari 13896) Anastasis

and

Incredulity

of

Thomas.

(Alinari

13743) 197.

Venice

32398)

St. Mark's.

The Body of St. Mark carried to the Ship.

(Alinari

LIST

. Venice.

St. Mark's.

OF

ILLUSTRATIONS

21

Angels above the Treasury Door. Creation

Cupola.

(Alinari 20733)

Venice.

St. Mark's, Narthex.

The

(Alinari

Venice.

St. Mark's, Narthex.

The animals going into the Ark.

. Venice.

St. Mark's, Narthex.

Cupola.

Life

13728) . Venice.

St. Mark's, Narthex.

Cupola.

Life of Moses.

. Venice.

St. Mark's, Cappella San Zeno.

13721)

(Alinari

38684) of

Abraham.

(Alinari

(Alinari

13738)

Scene from the life of St. Mark.

(Alinari 32406)

. Venice.

St.

Mark's,

Facade.

Translation

of

the

Body

of

St.

(Alinari 13720) . Torcello. Cathedral. . Torcello. Cathedral.

Vault. (Alinari 13834) Central apse. (Alinari 13836)

. Torcello.

Lateral apse, Christ, Saints, and Archangels.

Cathedral.

inari 13835) . Torcello. Last Judgment.

. . . . . . .

Mark.

(Al-

(Alinari 18281)

Murano. SS. Maria e Donato. Apse. (Alinari 13833) Trieste. Cathedral. Cappella del Sacramento. Apse. (Alinari 21135) Trieste. Cathedral. Cappella del Sacramento. Detail. (Alinari 21138) Trieste. Cathedral. Cappella di San Giusto. Apse. (Alinari 21129) Ravenna. Archiepiscopal Palace. Virgin as Orant. (Alinari 18268) Ravenna. Archiepiscopal Palace. Head of St. John. (Alinari 42127) Milan. Sant'Ambrogio. Apse. (Alinari 14500) Florence.

Baptistery.

Vault of the “Scarsella.”

. Florence. . Florence.

Baptistery. Baptistery.

Madonna and Child, detail. (Alinari 20452) St. John the Baptist. (Alinari 20453)

(Alinari 20451)

. Florence.

Baptistery.

General view of the dome.

. . . . . .

Florence. Florence. Florence. Florence. Florence. Florence.

Baptistery. Baptistery. Baptistery. Baptistery. Baptistery. Baptistery.

Decoration below the lantern. (Alinari 17249) Christ enthroned. (Alinari 3746) Detail of the "Hell" (Alinari 17246) Birth of St. John. (Alinari 17242) Detail of a head by Cimabue(?). (Alinari 17243) The Prophet Joel. (Brogi)

.

Florence.

Cathedral, lunette.

. Florence.

San Miniato.

Apse.

(Alinari 3738)

Coronation of the Virgin.

(Brogi

(Brogi 420)

2265)

. Florence. San Miniato. Facade. (Brogi 2266) . Lucca. San Frediano. Facade, Ascension. (Alinari 8424)

. . . .

Pisa. Cathedral Apse. (Brogi 19450) Rome. San Clemente. Apse and Triumphal Arch. (Brogi 17081) Rome. San Clemente. Apse, detail. (Alinari 7177) Rome. Santa Francesca Romana. Apse. (Alinari 27823)

A HISTORY

22

234. 235.

Rome. Rome.

OF MOSAICS

Santa Maria in Trastevere. Santa Maria in Trastevere.

Apse. (Brogi 15667) Apse, Jeremiah and Isaiah.

(Alin-

ari 28421) 236.

Rome.

Santa Maria

in

Trastevere.

Detail

of

the

facade.

(Alinari

28401)

241.

Rome. St. Peter's. Fresco of the Old Apse. (Anderson Poli. Cappella Conti. Head of Innocent III. (Moscioni Rome. San Paolo fuore-le-mura. Apse. (Brogi 17888) Rome. San Paolo fuore-le-mura. Head of Apostle in the derson 20999) Rome. San Tommaso in Formis. Medallion of Christ

242.

Civita

237. 238.

239. 240.

20309) 9077) Sacristy.

(Anj

and two Slaves.

(Venturi)

Castellana.

Lunette

in the Atrium

of the

Cathedral.

(Alinari

35881) 243. 244.

Rome. Rome.

Sancta Sanctorum. Vault. Santa Prassede, Cappella

(Alinari 26676) di San Zenone.

Virgin

and

Child.

(Brogi 17123) 245. 246.

247. 248.

249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256.

Rome. Sta. Maria sopra Minerva. Tomb of Durande. (Alinari 27887) Rome. Sta. Maria Maggiore. Tomb of Rodriguez. (Alinari 7151) Brooklyn Museum. Madonna, Rome. Sta. Sabina. Tombstone of Zamora. (Brogi 17983) Rome. San Crisógono. Madonna and Child. (Alinari 27994) Rome. Sta. Maria in Araceli. ari 26691)

Rome. Rome. Rome. Rome. Rome. Rome.

The Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta. Sta.

Madonna and Child in the lunette.

(Alin-

Lateran. Apse. (Brogi 15694) Maria Maggiore. Apse. (Alinari 7152) Maria Maggiore. Apse. Detail. (Alinari 28272) Maria Maggiore. Dormition. (Alinari 28273) Maria Maggiore. Facade, Christ, enthroned. (Alinari 28278) Maria Maggiore. Facade. Dream of Pope Liberius. (Al-

inari 28282) 257.

Rome.

Sta. Maria in Trastevere.

Cavallini.

Birth of the Virgin.

(Al-

inari 28415) 258.

Rome.

Sta. Maria in Trastevere. Cavallini.

250.

Rome. 28420)

Sta. Maria in Trastevere.

260.

Rome. St. Peter's. The “Navicella.”. (Alinari 7155) Rome. Boville Ernica. S. Pietro Ispano. Angel. (Mufioz) Constantinople. Kabrie Djami. Cupola. Christ and Prophets.

261. 262.

and Joaillier)

Cavallini.

Nativity. Dormition.

(Alinari 28417) (Alinari

28420)

(Sebah

LIST

263. 264.

265.

268.

269.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Constantinople. Kahrie Djami. (Sebah and Joaillier) Constantinople. Kahrie Djami. Constantinople. Kahrie Djami. Joaillier)

266. 267.

OF

23

Theodore Metochites at the feet of Christ. Dormition. The Magi

(Sebah and Joaillier) before Herod. (Sebah

and

.

Constantinople. Kahrie Djami. Annunciation. (Sebah and Joaillier) Constantinople. Kahrie Djami. The High-Priest Gives the Wool to the Virgin. (Sebah and Joaillier) Constantinople. Cupola of the Fetiye Djami. (Sebah and Joaillier) Constantinople. Cupola of the Fetiye Djami, Detail of Christ. (Sebah and Joaillier)

270. 271. 272. 273.

Venice. St. Mark's, Baptistery. Christ surrounded by angels and Seraphim. (Alinari 13761) Venice. St. Mark's, Baptistery. Herod's Feast. (Alinari 13763) Marienburg. Marien-Kirche. Virgin and Child. Venice. St. Mark's, Chapel of the Mascoli. Birth of the Virgin and Presentation.

(Alinari

13898)

274. 275.

Venice.

276.

Florence. Museo del Opera. St. Zenobius. (Brogi 7674) Rome. Sta. Croce in Gerusalemme, Cappella di Sta. Elena.

277.

St. Mark's, Chapel of the Mascoli.

Florence.

Cathedral.

Annunciation.

(Brogi

Dormition.

(Alinari 13900)

11408)

Vault.

(Alin-

ari 20134) 278.

Rome.

279.

Venice.

St. Mark's.

Detail of the Paradise.

280.

Venice.

St. Mark's.

Mosaic on Facade by Leopoldo dal Pozzo.

281.

ari 32422) Rome. St. Peter's. Detail of the Dome. (Alinari 26463) Rome. Facade of San Paolo fuori-le-mura. (Brogi 18604)

282.

Sta. Maria del Popolo, Cappella Chigi.

Cupola.

(Alinari 7248)

(Alinari 13748)

(Alin-

284.

Rome. Apse of the American Church by Burne-Jones. (Alinari 26497) Detroit. Church of the Holy Redeemer. Detail by R. Scheffler. (Ravenna Mosaics, Inc.)

285.

St. Louis.

286.

New York. St. Bartholomew's. Detail. (Ravenna Mosaics, Inc.) Paris. Sanctuaire de Ste. Thérése de l'Enfant Jésus. Detail of Mosaic by

283.

287.

Cathedral.

Detail.

(Ravenna Mosaics, Inc.)

the Brothers Maumejean. 288. 289.

290.

The Hague. Mosaic by Thorn-Prikker. (Ravenna Mosaics, Inc.) Germany. The Three Wise Men, by Ewald Duellberg. (Ravenna Mosaics, Inc.) Frankfurt-am-Main. Tower of the Frauen-Friedenskirche. (Ravenna Mosaics, Inc.)

24 291.

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

SS. "Bremen", Mosaic in Ball-Room by Maria May.

(Ravenna Mosaics,

Inc.) 292.

Stockholm, Town Hall.

The “Golden Hall” by Einar Forseth.

(Ravenna

Mosaics, Inc.) 293. 294. 295.

London. London.

296.

New York.

35 Upper Brook Street. Pavement by Boris Anrep. Pavement by Boris Anrep. National Gallery.

Rochester, New York.

Rochester Savings Bank.

(Ravenna Mosaics, Inc.)

International Telephone and Telegraph Building.

Victor White.

(Ravenna Mosaics, Inc.)

297.

Ottawa.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Building.

298.

ner. (Ravenna Mosaics, Inc.) Cincinnati. Union Terminal Station.

299.

New

300.

Inc.) New York.

York.

Mosaics by

Irving Trust Building. Rockefeller Center.

Mural.

Detail by Barry Faulk(Ravenna

Reception Room.

Mural.

Mosaics,

Inc.)

(Ravenna Mosaics,

(Ravenna Mosaics, Inc.)

THE

ORIGIN

AND

SPREAD

OF

MOSAIC

Tse

Osi0IN

AND

Sprean

or Mosaics

Mosaics defined; one of the most widespread and earliest of techniques—Roman and Christian Mosaics only one category in this development—Earliest mosaics: Sumerian mosaics of five thousand years ago: Warka—the al Ubaid Temple—The “Standard” of Ur—Egyptian Mosaics—Crete—Mohammedan Mosaics—Persian and Moorish Mosaic Tiles—Opus Sectile; its relation to mosaic— Florentine and Mogul intarsia—Early Mexican mosaics.

1.

THE

ORIGIN

AND

SPREAD

OF

MOSAIC’

Mosaic in its broadest interpretation may be termed a method of placing small pieces of differently colored materials closely together so as to form a surface, usually with a pattern or a pictorial representation. These spots of pure color when viewed at a certain distance tend to fuse together upon the retina of the eye and produce a result which may be called “impressionism”. The materials composing a mosaic must be fastened upon or set into a base or foundation which will hold them in place and thus, the result may be defined as a kind of inlay. Although

it is difficult to draw a sharp line between inlays which are or are not mosaics, the method at least was in use in Mesopotamia as early as the fourth millennium B. C., and decoration which may with certainty be called mosaic existed at that time. Dalton, who follows Strzygowski, is

of the opinion that all mosaics originated as imitation, in a more durable form, of carpets and hangings, but this as yet cannot be proved. It is probably from such early traditions that Hellenistic and Roman pavements and the Early Christian wall mosaics were ultimately evolved,

and it is with these mosaics that we are chiefly concerned, but we should bear in mind that viewed in true perspective they are but one phase of a method of decoration which may be nearly as ancient as art itself. Five thousand years ago or possibly even earlier, in Southern Mesopo-

tamia, the Sumerians covered walls with mosaics.

Among the débris of

houses of the al "Ubaid period are found cones of baked clay, shaped somewhat like pencils with the blunt end painted red or black, or sometimes left plain. These cones were used for wall mosaics. None are in situ but their use is proved by examples of the same technique of a later date.

At Warka

(Uruk) the Germans have excavated a Ziggurat tower

with a high stepped platform constructed of mud bricks. The upper part of

28

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

the walls is decorated in panels with a mosaic of large clay cones, hollow

like vases, and sunk in the mud plaster.

A very striking effect is obtained

by the white rims and the dark shadow of the interiors. As Woolley says, “In this case the size of the ‘inlay’ is determined by the height of

the building—seen from so far away the small solid cones would have been ineffective—and the hollows take the place of color". In another building at Warka there is an example of the small-cone technique. Here, there is a great courtyard enclosed by a wall with half columns and at one end steps lead to a terrace with a columned hall. The columns, the facade of the terrace and the whole of the courtyard wall were covered with a mosaic, red and black and white, made up of the

same little pencil-like cones as are found in the débris of the al "Ubaid houses. To quote Woolley again, “On every half-column the pattern is different; the panels of the platform front, framed by pilasters in relief,

are filled with delicate designs; as in the case of the painted pottery, the elements are simple, zigzags, triangles and lozenges, but these are combined into an intricately varied scheme of decoration, and though the

colors are faded now the general effect is wonderfully rich...”

Woolley

thinks that these mosaics were used instead of paint to preserve the mud

plaster of the walls as they formed an almost waterproof covering as well as a permanent decoration. The earliest mosaics were made with clay cones only. In time, animal motifs were combined with the early geometric patterns and later these were made in one piece—silhouetted figures of baked clay—and set against a background of cone mosaic. According to Woolley the final step was “to extend the technique of the figures to the background also, and instead of the long pencil-like cones imbedded in the plaster we find a mosaic of large or small pieces of flat stone secured by copper wire and bitumen to a wooden backing, or the figures might be inlaid in slabs of solid stone, as is the case with some of the Kish palace decoration". At al ’Ubaid a remarkably ornate little shrine of the First Dynasty of Ur, 3100-3000 B. C., the so-called Temple of A-anni-padda, can be

THE

ORIGIN

AND

SPREAD

OF MOSAIC

reconstructed from the many fragments which have been uncovered.

29

The

entrance was flanked by palm-columns covered with a mosaic of red and black stone and mother-of-pearl—lozenges and triangles—anticipating to some extent the mosaic columns of Pompeii. On the walls were

mosaic freizes—a dairy scene, rows of cattle, and birds—the figures of shell or limestone against a background of black stone. The Sumerians also decorated various objects, harps, gaming-boards, furniture with silhouetted figures cut from the solid portion of the conchshell and set against a background of lapis-lazuli mosaic. This technique is in the old tradition of the wall mosaics reduced in scale. The most remarkable example is the extraordinary “Standard of Ur” with its rows

of men and animals portraying a field of battle and the celebration of victory. Woolley thinks that the early Sumerian reliefs were strongly influenced by the old tradition of mosaic as they are separated from the

plane of the background by an almost vertical edge and the background must have been originally filled with a colored paste or mosaic. Work which may be classed as a kind of mosaic existed at a compar-

atively early date in Egypt.

Numerous objects belonging to the minor

arts show a minute inlay of colored glass, lapis-lazuli, and other stones in small compartments of ivory, and similar work on a larger scale as a

decoration for the capitals of columns has been found at Tel-el-Yehudia in Lower Egypt. Here, bits of colored glass and earthenware have been inserted into sinkages to form lotus and other patterns. In a temple of Rameses II, near Heliopolis, there are some wall reliefs with an inlay of glass paste. The early Minoans were also familiar with the methods of mosaic. Sir Arthur Evans discovered a rough stone box in the Lesser Palace at Knossos containing small tesserz of crystal, amethyst, beryl, lapis-lazuli, and solid gold which must have been used for very fine work resembling the later miniature mosaics of the Byzantines. For their pavements the

30

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

ZEgeans also imbedded pebbles in a hard clay, sometimes using different colors to form simple patterns and such work may have led directly to the Greek pebble mosaics, such as those found recently at Olynthus and which we shall consider later. In Mohammedan countries the native artists seldom imitated cube mosaics of the Roman or Byzantine type. The few surviving examples

such as those in “The Dome of the Rock” at Jerusalem, the Great Mosque at Damascus, or the Mosque at Cordova were done by Early Christians or Byzantines. But the Mohammedans inherited the great ceramic traditions of Mesopotamia and Persia, the glazed and enamelled brick of the Chaldeans and Babylonians which had been continued by their successors, and from these traditions came wall tiles. Persia, in addition to the purely faience or lustre tiles, developed a mosaic tile, which from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries was used in some of the most beautiful polychrome decorations in existence. The technique consisted of cutting large tiles of solid colors into small shaped units which were then assembled into rich and complex patterns. The dominant color was a deep blue with turquoise as a foil, and other tones—light emerald, saffron, a rich black, and white—were used for outlines and accents. The patterns followed the intricacy and finesse of the Persian

miniaturists.

Remarkable examples are found in the mosque at Veramin

of the early fourteenth century, the mosque of Chah-Sindeh at Samarkand, 1392, and at Isfahan, especially, the great portal of the Masjid-i-

Shah. Further west in Northern Aírica and Spain the Mohammedan potters developed a slightly different type of mosaic faieke which later became Spanish azulejos and which we find in the Alhambra, the House of Pilate at Seville and elsewhere. Persian mosaic faience found its way

to India in the wake of the Moslem conquerors and there are still fine examples in old tombs and mosques, notably at Delhi. A similar technique was used on the great entrance arch and loggia of the Chinili Kiosk for the Seraglio at Constantinople, erected from 1466 to 1470.

THE

ORIGIN

AND

SPREAD

OF MOSAIC

31

However, in Persia and the rest of the East mosaic tiles were gradually

abandoned in favor of those of painted faience. We may also mention the small scale geometric inlay of wood, often

combined with ivory and mother-of-pearl, used throughout the Mohammedan world for the decoration of furniture and panels, and which may

be called a kind of mosaic. A technique closely related to mosaic, called opus sectile Romans, consists of an inlay in which the materials are cut to contours of the design. It was much employed by the Romans, sball see later, and revived in the well-known Florentine intarsia

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

by fit as of

the the we the

It was most brilliantly developed

under the Moguls in India in their buildings at Agra and Delhi where the most intricate patterns are formed in the cut marble and color is furnished not only by colored marbles but by precious and semi-precious stones.

But mosaics were not confined solely to the civilizations which grew up in Mesopotamia and about the Mediterranean. They also played an important róle in the early cultures of Central America and Mexico. Included in the loot of the first Spanish conquistadores, the expeditions of Juan de Grijalva in 1518, and Cortes in 1519-1525, were shields, helmets, statuettes and other objects covered with extraordinary turquoise mosaics. Some of these found their way to Spain and Italy and may be seen in the Ethnographic Museum in Rome and elsewhere. More recent archzeological expeditions have greatly increased the number and

splendid examples may now be found in several museums. These so-called turquoise mosaics so prized by the Aztecs were used to cover masks, shields, plaques, helmets, and many other objects. Sometimes, as in Mesopotamia, they were employed as a background for figures in flat relief. Although turquoise predominates, other materials were used—jadeite, malachite, quartz, beryl, garnet, obsidian, marcasite, gold, bits of colored shell, mother-of-pearl. These materials were fixed

32

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

to a base of wood or stone, or even gold or shell or pottery, and held in

place by a vegetal pitch or gum, or a kind of cement.

Designs formed

of the actual pieces were of less importance than the general effect of rich vibrating color, but some of the plaques have simple patterns of concentric circles and geometric motifs. The extraordinary feature is that the pieces employed, roughly square or rectangular in shape, are like those used in the Roman and Christian mosaics, and they may be called tesserz or cubes in the actual sense of the word. In fact, the two

techniques are so similar that it is difficult to believe that they are not related even though they developed so for apart. These mosaics were still flourishing under the Aztecs at the time of the Spanish conquest but they go back in origin at least to the early Mayan civilization. There is a remarkable plaque of turquoise set in black cement or gum on sandstone, at Chichen Itzá in Yucatan, from

the so-called “Altar Cache" of the Temple of the Warriors.

Somewhat

similar work, though cruder, has also been found with ancient remains of the Pueblos of Arizona and New Mexico and incrusted objects have been discovered in connection with early burials on the coast of Peru. The Aztecs also adorned garments, and objects for warfare or religious ceremonies with mosaics made of tiny bits of feathers applied to wood, skin or paper with glue. These less durable feather mosaics have, of course, almost entirely disappeared. We may mention that the

Chinese have also made feather mosaics. Thus, we see that mosaics are not confined to one area or one period. Various peoples during the last few thousand years have used them as a means of artistic expression. But the great art of mosaic which developed and spread about the shores of the Mediterranean and has left us so much of the really permanent beauty of the past is our primary concern in the following chapters.

THE OF

CHARACTERISTICS CLASSICAL

AND

AND TECHNIQUE

CHRISTIAN

MOSAICS

Tur

CHARACTERISTICS AND TECHNIQUE OF CLASSICAL AND CHRıstIan Mosascs

Distinguishing qualities—Primarily an architectural decoration— Comparison with painting and with stained glass—Possibilities and limitations—Technique: materials, methods and processes.

II

THE OF

CHARACTERISTICS CLASSICAL

AND

AND

TECHNIQUE

CHRISTIAN

MOSAICS

Mosaic as here considered is a surface decoration made by setting

small pieces of differently colored stone or glass in a bed of cement.

It

is well to bear in mind how it technically differs from painting, for its special processes give it its individual character. It is primarily an

architectural decoration whether used as a pavement or upon walls, in fact, it cannot well exist without its architectural setting; small portative

mosaic panels or pictures are an off-shoot of the major art, and with these we shall not be much concerned here. Nearly all the earliest mosaics which have survived are pavements, composed of tesserz, or cubes, of variously colored marbles, and, in fact, in ancient times pavements of mosaic were probably used much more extensively than wall decorations, although the latter were not unknown. With the beginning of an officially recognized Christian art in the fourth, century, wall mosaics take on a greater importance, and differ essentially from the pavements on account of their being almost entirely composed of tesserz of colored glass. Pavements of mosaic continue, of course, but they tend to follow the older traditions both in design and technique, and, in general, become a separate branch of the art, having little or no influence upon wall decorations. The study of later pavements is, therefore, a special subject which will only concern us here in so far as it throws light upon the early development of the art as a whole. On account of their possibilities for color, mosaics have never been

surpassed as architectural adornment on a large scale, and in the early Christian period, and for the greater part of the Middle Ages, throughout the Byzantine Empire and in Italy, they were the chief murals; frescoes occupying a secondary position. The broad, simple treatment and the

tendency towards abstraction and formalization, characteristic of all early

36

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

medieval art, and, especially that of the Near East, were suited to the technique of mosaic and to subjects which were at a distance. During the great periods of the art until the century, the mosaicists possessed a knowledge of their craít,

eminently to be seen fourteenth an under-

standing of the possibilities as well as the limitations of the medium, equal to that of the great painters. Mosaics are best suited to dimly lighted interiors and to constantly changing surfaces, such as the curves of an apse. As they reflect so

much light themselves, the light which strikes them should never be too direct or too intense. The great mosaic interiors like St. Mark’s at Venice, Torcello, the Florentine Baptistery, the Dome of the Rock at

Jerusalem, and the Sicilian apses are all dimly lighted.

The few examples

we have of exterior mosaics are less successful. The qualities of the best mosaics have, perhaps, never been better

described than by John Addington Symonds, in the frequently-quoted passage from his "Sketches in Italy": ‘The superiority of mosaics over fresco as an architectural adjunct on this gigantic scale is apparent at a glance in Monreale. Permanency of splendor and glowing richness of tone are all on the side of the mosaics. Their true rival is painted glass. The jewelled churches of the South are constructed for the display of colored surfaces illuminated by sunlight falling on them from narrow windows, just as those of the North—Rheims, for example, or Le Mans— are built for the transmission of light through a variegated medium of transparent hues. The painted windows of the Northern cathedral find

their proper counterpart in the mosaics of the South.

The Gothic archi-

tect strove to obtain the greatest amount of translucent surface. The Byzantine builder directed his attention to securing just enough light for the illumination of his glistening walls." Roger Fry ? in an interesting article emphasizes what he calls “the

unique power of mosaic in the realization of vision. The vibrancy of effect produced by decidedly broken color creates a definite zsthetic

CHARACTERISTICS

AND

TECHNIQUE

37

stimulant which in the right surroundings, quickens religious emotion." This vibration of color, a kind of super-impressionism, from the juxtaposition of a variety of spots of distinctly different tones, is what gives

mosaic its most individual quality and differentiates it from fresco. Mosaics show a kind of collective inspiration, common to nearly all early medieval art. The personality of the artist does not emerge; no work is signed until the thirteenth century. The early examples were

often done by groups of artists, as in the old Cathedral of Ravenna, the Basilica Ursiana, where four mosaicists worked: Eusebius and Paulus on the left half, and Statius and Stephanus on the right. * The art of mosaic is vital and independent until the fourteenth century. From that time on, it becomes gradually submerged by the dominating influence of painting, and continues to exist, almost as a mere craft, only at Venice and at Rome. There is a certain revival of interest in the nineteenth century, but this is unaccompanied by any real appreciation of its inherent qualities as an art, as far as actual production is concerned. It is only in our own day that there are signs of a true revival. We

shall trace its growth

through

Early Christian

times to the

splendid culmination of the fifth and the sixth centuries at Ravenna and elsewhere, and continue through the further developments which bring

about the second great period of the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries in Greece, Venice, Sicily and Rome; we shall then pass in review more briefly its losing struggle against the constantly increasing adverse con-

ditions beginning with the Renaissance. Some knowledge of the technique‘ is necessary to rightly understand such a highly specialized art, which depends so much upon proper execution for its effect. The surface to be decorated, wall, vault, or cupola, was rusticated and covered with a coat of cement, often several inches in thickness, to provide an even ground. Upon this toundation, a second coat of very strong cement was applied to receive the actual

38

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

mosaic. Sometimes as many as three coats were used if the foundation had not properly prepared the surface. A problem arose which was somewhat similar to that in fresco painting. On account of the comparatively rapid drying of the cement, only that amount of the final coat could be laid in which the tesser& could be imbedded at one time. The best mortar was usually considered to be a combination

of powdered

marble, lime

and a kind of natural Portland cement. The Romans used the volcanic substance known as pozzulana which has many of the qualities of Portland cement. At the end of the sixteenth century, Muziano da Brescia, the director of the work in St. Peter's, invented a slow-drying cement, or mastic mixed with oil, which was used to some extent in St. Peter's and elsewhere, and since then there have been many experiments to try to improve the binding material. It has been proved that in some of the best work which has successfully resisted for centuries the ravages of time the coats of cement are very thin, the first being little more than one inch in thickness, and the second hardly one quarter of an inch. With cement of the best quality mosaics are practically indestructible and merit the definition which Ghirlandaio is said to have applied to them, “La pittura per l'eternità" ; a good deal of the destruction which has necessitated so much restoration, even in the early mosaics, has been caused by the cement becoming detached from the walls; oftentimes due to the fact that the foundation coat was not moistened when the second coat was applied. Every age in the past has notoriously despised the work of its predecessors, and restorations were often an excuse for destruction; but, nevertheless, in the case of many mosaics almost constant renewal has been necessary on account of the poor quality of the foundation. For example, in the recent restoration of the triumphal arch of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome, a work of the fifth century, it was discovered that the foundation coat of cement, at least five centimeters thick, had been applied to a perfectly smooth brick wall to which it had not bound sufficiently. In addition, the surface coat of cement in which

CHARACTERISTICS

AND

TECHNIQUE

39

the tesserz were imbedded had in places separated from the foundation coat. In order to preserve the work it was necessary to remove the surface very carefully in pieces so as not to disturb the position of the tesserz in the slightest degree, and then to entirely renew the foundation. In the thirteenth century apse of this same church it has also been found that Torriti studded the foundation cement with iron nails in order to strengthen it. These nails have rusted away during the course of the centuries and have not only stained the surface of the mosaic but have caused the cement to disintegrate so that some time a very drastic restoration will be necessary in order to preserve the work. In 1648" a decree was passed in Venice forbidding salutes of artillery | and fireworks on the Piazza of St. Mark’s, as it was found that the resulting vibration caused damage to the mosaics in the basilica. In 1697 it was found necessary to enforce this decree even more rigorously. The surface having been prepared, the tesserz were squeezed into: it, not too closely together, with the result that some of the cement was usually pushed up between the joints, and colored if the white showed too strongly. The tesserz varied in size and shape. As a rule they were roughly rectangular or square, and from an eighth of an inch to three quarters of an inch in size. The smallest were usually employed for faces and hands and other details, while the larger ones were used in the backgrounds and draperies. We speak of them either as "cubes" or “tessere”, but “cube” should not suggest that they are square in the strict sense of the word. Every appearance of mechanical precision was avoided and the pieces always have the irregularity which comes from the chipping. Mosaics depend, perhaps, more than anything else upon the proper. reflection of light. If the cubes were merely pushed in flush with the!

surface there would be, in many cases, an over-reflection.

To avoid

this, they were often tilted at an angle, usually of about thirty degrees, depending upon their position and the amount of light. This has been

40

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

noted by Boni at Parenzo, by Walter George at St. Irene in Constantinople, and by Marguerite van Berchem at Jerusalem and Damascus, and recently by Thomas Whittemore in the narthex of St. Sophia. A clear understanding of tone values tended to leave the cubes of lighter color slightly raised above those which were darker; in most of the good work the blacks and other dark tones are always more deeply set than the rest.

In the Roman pavements the tesserz were usually of Greek and Luna marbles, with other stone employed occasionally. Thus, the colorscale was very restricted; black and white, red, yellow, and an olivebrown were the chief tones. Cubes of glass enamel and even gold cubes were, however, sometimes employed in the wall decorations, as in fountain niches at Pompeii and elsewhere, and perhaps their use was even more extensive than we now realize, as nearly all traces of wall coverings of this character have, of course, been destroyed. In many of the Roman pavements the tessere have been closely fitted together, giving the polished effect of modern work, but the few fragments of wall mosaics which have come down to us are better in this respect. Seneca mentions walls hidden by glass, and the historian Flavius Vopiscus, writing at the beginning of the fourth century, speaks of a wealthy Roman who had his house decorated with squares of glass set in bitumen.’ The basilica of Junius Bassus on the Esquiline had glass mosaics, and it is probably

fragments of these which still exist in the Palazzo del Drago in Rome. The Museo delle Terme has a few fragments which are similar to those

in the early Christian basilicas.

Therefore we cannot say that the Chris-

tians were the first to use glass mosaics. Although the art probably originated in the East, the early Christians

must have found the technique ready to hand in the buildings of pagan Rome; but they were, apparently, the first to make use of it as mural decoration on such a large scale and to realize the full splendor of its color effects.

CHARACTERISTICS

AND

TECHNIQUE

4I

The glass used in the manufacture of the tessere was generally colored by the introduction of metallic oxides. Oxide of tin was used from very early times to make the color opaque; oxide of copper was used for the blues, chromium for the greens, and so on. The manufacture of gold and silver cubes is more complicated, and the process still in use at Murano probably represents a very old method; at least, it is similar to that used in the manufacture of the Early Christian figured, gold glasses. A thin piece of glass is taken, shaped somewhat like a watch-crystal. Gold foil is applied to the concave side and the glass is then subjected to a certain amount of heat. Then, some fused enamel, usually dark red or green, is poured into the concave side; the whole is flattened, fired again, and allowed gradually to cool. Thus, when it is cut up, there are

three layers; the enamel base, the gold foil, and the thin transparent film which protects it.

This protective film, in process of time, is apt to

fall off, causing those dark spots which we so frequently see in the gold backgrounds. In the earliest times, the enamel base was usually of a colorless glass, but from about the eighth century it was the custom to

use red glass as it gave a richer effect to the gold. In the earliest mosaics the backgrounds are usually light, and marble

tessere are used in connection with the glass.

The mosaics of Santa

Costanza and those of the nave of Santa Maria Maggiore have light backgrounds in the classical manner. Blue backgrounds were also used as early as the fourth century, and they never wholly died out. The most beautiful example is, perhaps, the vault of the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, and almost equally fine is the sixth century apse of SS. Cosma e Damiano. In the fifth and the early sixth centuries the use of gold backgrounds became almost universal and has persisted ever since. The names San Martino a Cielo d'Oro, now Sant'Apollinare Nuovo at Ravenna, and San Victor a Cielo d'Oro at Milan bear witness to the success of this new method. The range of colors employed even in the earlier wall mosaics was notlarge. In the nave of Santa Maria Maggiore there were forty-eight

42

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

different tones comprising shades of red, blue, rose, green, yellow, gray, in addition to black and brown. The number was varied and extended as time went on, but in the best work only a comparatively few strong colors were used.XIt is the very essence of mosaic, which is meant to be seen at a distance, and relies so much upon the vibration of color, to employ only a few strongly contrasted tones to obtain brilliancy of effect. Audacious spotting of intense color in clearly defined areas gives the best of the early mosaics an extraordinary carrying power. It is only later when the art strove to imitate the methods and appearances of painting that the gradations were so enormously multiplied, so that today the Vatican studio boasts of over twenty-eight thousand different shades. 'Thomas Whittemore in his careful study of the mosaics of the narthex of St. Sophia at Constantinople has taken accurate note of all the colors used there. In the marble tesserz he found a white and a neutral tint, yellow ochre, yellow brown, cadmium orange, rose madder and Rubens madder. The colors of the glass tessere are: lemon yellow, red ochre, red brown, indigo, purple lake, Van Dyke brown, rose brown, raw umber, burnt umber, cobalt blue, ultramarine, veridian, cobalt green, chrome yellow, chrome green and haematite black. Thus, we find a rather restricted range of color even in a series of the most splendid Byzantine mosaics. In the mosaics of “The Dome of the Rock" at Jerusalem, unsurpassed for the richness of their color effects, Marguerite Van Berchem has noted the following tones: the dominating notes are green, blue, and gold—the greens and the blues by their splendid tints recalling those of Persian ceramics. To these three fundamental colors are added, but in small quantities, several shades of red, silver, grey, violet or mauve, brown, black and white. All of the tesserz are of glass except those of white, grey, and rose which are of stone.

Marble and stone tesserz continued throughout the whole period to be used to a large extent for the faces and the hands.

It is sometimes

CHARACTERISTICS

AND

TECHNIQUE

43

very difficult to distinguish between the grayish-white cubes of opaque

glass which were often used, and those of marble.

In the sixth century

other materials—mother-of-pearl, even semi-precious stones—were sometimes employed for richness and variety of effect, as in San Vitale at Ravenna. A good many marble and stone tesserz are used in the Venetian mosaics and Torriti uses marble tessere in the apse of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome. From the time of the Roman pavements to the Renaissance special local materials were also employed in conjunction with marble or glass. For example, in France, a black bituminous schist and a white and reddish limestone found near Autun were used in the pavements of that

region.

Mosaics from Boulogne-sur-Mer contain black and white cubes

which come from nearby quarries, and bluish cubes in a mosaic from

Anthée (Namur) are of a marble found in the vicinity of Dinant. Salerno in Southern Italy, pebbles from the gulf portions of the mosaics, and in the mosaics of find pebbles from the river Piave. Later, at St. from Cotanello was employed for certain flesh cotta are often found—and even egg-shells.

At

were used for the whitish St. Mark's at Venice we Peter's at Rome, a stone tones. Tesser® of terra-

Early mosaics were always executed in situ.

It is a question as to

how much of the actual design was indicated on the surface as a guide for the placing of the cubes. In some cases plaster was laid on the foundation coat of cement, and on this the principal features of the design were drawn and colored. This was removed little by little as the work progressed, and the binding cement and tesserz substituted for it. It seems, however, to have been more usual to scratch the design upon the cement, occasionally indicating the larger areas of color as a guide. We now have proof that on the triumphal arch of Santa Maria Maggiore the cartoon for the mosaic was rather carefully drawn and indicated in color

on the plaster below and Torriti followed the same method eight centuries later in the apse. In any case, the designs, carefully thought out beforehand, must have been produced by a master mosaicist who con-

44

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

trolled the work, and the tesserz arranged upon some sort of cartoon,

following much the same method that was employed in medizval stained glass. Details and much of the actual placing of the cubes were left to assistants, highly trained in their craft, who manipulated the tessere

in the same intelligent way that the painter used his brush.

We may

mention that the cement which showed between the tesserze was some-

times stained to blend with the colors of the tesser& themselves and was sometimes left a neutral gray. A fairly common practice seems to have been to stain the cement of the gold backgrounds red in order to enhance the effect, as in the narthex of St. Sophia at Constantinople and at Nicza. Later, when the designs were controlled by the painters, elaborate cartoons were provided, worked out in minute detail. They were usually pricked through or stencilled upon the surface to be decorated. All the mosaicist had to do was to mechanically copy a pattern. The final stage was to paste the cubes face downwards upon a paper model, transport them in sections, and put them in place. This lifeless method is still

followed today, but the tendency now is to break away from it. An understanding of the ways by which the best mosaics were pro-

duced ought to help one to appreciate them more fully. Technique in itself does not make a work of art, but in the case of mosaics, its degradation from the time of the Renaissance has almost prevented the accomplishing of anything of real excellence, so that it does not seem out of

place to discuss this development in more or less detail.

HELLENISTIC

AND

ROMAN

MOSAICS

Herremistic

AND

Roman

Mosaics

Mosaics of classical Greece; the pebble mosaics of Olynthus— Late Hellenistic and Roman pavements from Syria to Britain— Varieties of mosaic as understood by the Romans—Résumé of Roman pavements and their influence upon Early Christian mosaics—Palestine, Syria, Northern Africa—The earliest Wall mosaics—the "Silvanus" from Ostia—Catacomb mosaics—Changes brought about by the recognition of Christianity.

III.

HELLENISTIC

AND

ROMAN

MOSAICS

It was long thought that the Greeks of classical times did not employ mosaic, but recently a very interesting series of mosaic pavements have

been uncovered at Olynthus in Macedonia, dating from the fifth and the fourth centuries B. C. This discovery fills an important gap in the early history of the art, but it is too soon as yet to say just how much direct

influence work of this kind had upon the later Hellenistic pavements of cube mosaic. These Olynthus mosaics are composed of pebbles of red, white, blue, green, and purple. Mythological scenes and other designs are represented. One of the earliest, in blue and white natural pebbles, shows Bellerophon on the winged Pegasus, hurling a spear at the Chimzra beneath him. Another represents two griffins tearing to pieces a stag; another a warrior with a yellow helmet attacking a centaur. Others show a lion devouring a stag, two winged griffins on either side of a deer, birds and animals, and floral designs. Although these pavements are very different technically from later mosaics, the transition from pebbles to cubes is not an abrupt one, but rather, the refining of a cruder method. It is, however, in Egypt, in the time of the Ptolemies, that the fashion of decorating pavements and walls with tesserz of marble and other materials seems to have developed into an independent art which spread into the rest of the Near East—Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, and to the Roman provinces of the West. Two qualities especially inherent in mosaic—splendor of color and durability—must have strongly appealed to the Romans, for the quantity of pavements found in every province, stretching from Mesopotamia to Germany and England, is

almost numberless. Very few of these remains can be dated earlier than the first century before Christ, although there are a few late Hellenistic pavements at Delos and elsewhere; the great majority of them are of the time of the

48

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Empire. Egyptian, especially Alexandrian influence, is strong in all the Imperial Roman mosaics, whether in Pompeii, Palestine, Northern Africa, or the other provinces. This is seen especially in the representations of the aquatic life of the Nile with the native fauna and flora, and, also, in the types of more conventional decoration. The Romans classified mosaics into several categories *, according to the kinds and the forms of the materials used. Opus tessellatum was composed of cubes of marble or stone, regularly placed in simple geometric patterns, and most of the Roman black and white pavements were carried out in this technique. Opus vermiculatum employed cubes of colored marbles or glass in a more irregular way to obtain'a pictorial effect, and when this method was applied to walls and vaults it was more properly called opus musivum. It is from these last two methods that the mural mosaics of the Early Christians develop. The work which the Romans

designated as opus sectile does not

come under the head of mosaic, although it has sometimes been thus classified.

It is

a marquetry in marble or other colored material, in

which the pieces are cut in irregular patterns following more or less closely the outlines of the objects represented. The most famous early examples are the panels representing fighting beasts from the Basilica of Junius Bassus, now in the Capitoline Museum, and the more elaborate

Hylas and the Nymphs and the Consular Chariot from the same basilica, now in the Palazzo del Drago. In the Tigress and the Bull from the Capitoline, the background is of green porphyry and the skin of the tigress

is of giallo antico with stripes of the same green porphyry.

The bull is

in different shades of marble varying from cream to brown; various browns are used for the earth and the trees; white marble is used for the leaves, and the eyes of both beasts are of mother-of-pearl. This technique, employing comparatively large pieces of marble cut to fit the contours of the design, had no influence upon the Early Christian wall

mosaics which, as we have seen, are executed in opus vermiculatum or opus musivum.

HELLENISTIC

Roman

pavements

AND

ROMAN

MOSAICS

49

of the first two centuries are almost entirely

Hellenistic in inspiration, and Alexandria was probably the center of this radiating influence (1, 2 and 3). We find all the scenes of classical mythology, landscapes illustrating the idylls of Theocritus, as well as the exceedingly popular scenes of life on the Nile, and other genre subjects. It will be sufficient to mention the famous mosaic from Palestrina

with its great variety of Nilotic subjects, naturalistically treated; the Academy of Plato from Torre Annunziata and the Battle of Issus from Pompeii, both now in the Naples Museum. Later, in the period of the Antonines and the third and fourth centuries, the subjects often have a more native flavor and more realism; one will recall the boxers and gladiators from the Baths of Caracalla (4).

Sometimes, a separate mosaic picture, or emblema, a miniature copying of some popular painting, was inserted in the center of a frame

with a border of geometric or floral designs.

One of the best known of

the emblema is the famous “Doves” of the Capitoline Museum, found

at Hadrian's Villa (5).

In its minute technique and striving to imitate

the naturalistic effects of painting, this is not unlike the later Roman

mosaics of the seventeenth century. It may even be a copy of the mosaic so much admired by Pliny, executed by a Greek artist, Sosos, from Pergamon.

Many of these embleme discovered at Pompeii or Herculaneum, may be seen in the Museum at Naples, others in the museums of Rome

and elsewhere.

They were common

throughout the empire.

One of

the most widely known, now in the Naples Museum, is signed by Dioskourides of Samos, and probably copies a Hellenistic painting of the

fourth century B. C.

More charming than this is a panel showing a

group of actors and musicians in front of stage scenery. This is also in Naples. Most characteristic are the many genre scenes, animals, still-life, in fact, all the repertoire so dear to the Dutch painters of the seventeenth century. They appealed to a popular taste which was impressed by a

certain facile technical skill in imitating the light and shade and the

50

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

minute gradations of paint. They have, of course, little or no influence upon the later development of wall mosaics which sought to give an entirely different impression. Pavements, as we have seen in our discussion of technique, were nearly always composed of tesser& of marble, or stone, with a limited number of colors. Glass cubes were occasionally used, as in the early pavement from the House of the Faun at Pompeii, but this is almost an isolated example. However, in the wall mosaics which have disappeared glass tessere were used to a considerable extent, if we may believe the early writers, such as Seneca and Flavius Vopiscus. It seems probable that this custom of employing glass tesserz also originated in Hellenistic

Egypt " along with the manufacture of pavements.

The Egyptians were

also famous for their great fondness for decoration in color. We have not the space to consider in detail the interesting pavements of Northern Africa ", of Syria—especially Antioch—and the Holy

Land "5, nor, indeed, of all the territories where Roman civilization held sway for any length of time, from the British Isles to the Black Sea. Often, they have great intrinsic merit and are well adapted for their purpose; simple effective designs of black and white; the motifs of the borders, frets, meanders, garlands, masks, in the best classical traditions. Others show an over-fondness for naturalistic representation, an indiscriminate strewing of the surface with unrelated objects which may even descend to the utmost depths of vulgarity and naiveté, as, for example, a large mosaic in the Lateran Museum which may be a copy of the famous pavement of Sosus of Pergamon, described by Pliny, upon which the débris of a feast —bones, egg-shells, mice carrying off scraps of food— were painstakingly displayed; a permanent record of bad taste and bad table manners. On the whole, they continue as a separate tradition. From their very nature—they are to be trodden upon—only the more durable materials, such as marble or stone are employed, and this tends to confine them within certain limits and to divide them more and more from the

HELLENISTIC

wall mosaics.

AND

ROMAN

MOSAICS

SI

Here, they interest us principally as a link in the develop-

ment of the art, and for their influence upon the first Christian wall mosaics of the fourth and the fifth centuries. Among the hundreds of pavements scattered throughout Europe as far north as Roman civilization held sway we may mention a few outstanding examples. In France, a villa discovered at Jurangon contains one of the most extensive series of paved rooms in existence. A great mosaic at Lillebonne has a central emblema with Diana and Callisto, surrounded by a border of hunting scenes. "There are other fine mosaics at Rheims, especially the ““Mosaic of the Promenade", at Aixen-Provence, Lyon, Cherchel, Sainte-Colombe, near Vienne and many other places. In Germany we have the remarkable mosaic at Nennig, near Trier, with combats of gladiators and bestiarii in hexagonal panels, and at Trier itself, the third-century mosaic signed by Monnos—a pave-

ment nineteen feet square, about two thirds preserved, with representations of the Muses, famous writers of antiquity, and the Months. The Woodchester pavement in England—nearly fifty feet square—was discovered in 1797. In the center was a figure of Orpheus surrounded by compartments filled in with guilloches, scrolls and frets. Orpheus was a favorite subject in British mosaics and occurs at Cirencester in Gloucestershire and at Brading in the Isle of Wight. Quite recently other

interesting Roman pavements have been discovered in England. In Northern Africa, especially, the whole development of this art may be traced from the earlier pavements of a purely classical tradition to the tombal mosaics of the fourth and the fifth centuries, such as those at Tabarka, which are already in what might be called that general Mediterranean style prevalent in the Near East and Italy, and even in Spain, as we shall see later.

Many of these Northern African pavements, especially those found at Uthina (Oudna), Timgad, and Cyrene show a development of floral designs in all-over patterns which are carried out with an astonishing

52

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

richness of color, and which almost anticipate the splendor of the Early

Christian wall mosaics. Some of these date from as early as the second century, but they are quite different from the typical Roman pavement of two or three tones with the emblema in the center.

A charming vintage

scene from the Villa of the Laberii at Uthina ** shows Dionysus in the center giving the vine to Ikarios, King of Attica. Over the background, interlacing vines grow in pairs from four vases in the corners, strikingly similar to a design on the ring-vault of Santa Costanza at Rome. The whole is enclosed in a heavy border of fruits and flowers with four masks.

At Timgad " we have even more elaborately developed all-over patterns in the “carpet style", so-called from the resemblance to richly woven textiles. The motifs consist of scrolls, conventionalized flowers and foliage, interspersed with birds, animals, and vases with sometimes a panel in the center representing a mythological scene. Fine examples are the pavement from the House of Sertius, now in the Museum of Timgad, the “Mosaique de la Piscine", (6) and in a more convention-

alized manner, the pavement from the baths of a society known as the Filadelfi. The predominating colors in these mosaics are blue, green, and red, with less use of black, white, gray and yellow. Some fine pavements dating from the first or the second century have been found in a Roman villa at Zliten,” in Tripoli near the border of Tunis. The most famous represents a series of gladiatorial combats,

but more beautiful is one composed of magnificent acanthus scrolls, recalling the Ara Pacis at Rome, with birds and animals on the branches

(7). This and the other African pavements we have mentioned show that richness of color was not unknown to the mosaicists of classical times. The designs of these carpet style mosaics recall the early textiles discovered at Antinoé and elsewhere in Egypt, and we may well suppose an Alexandrian influence here. The series of over forty pavements uncovered since 1932 at Antioch show in striking fashion the progress of mosaic in that center during the

HELLENISTIC

AND

ROMAN

MOSAICS

53

first six centuries. The subjects remain pagan even in those which may be ascribed to a late date. There is a great fondness for mythological scenes and, especially, personifications. Here, as in Northern Africa, one may trace a gradual breaking away from a servile copying of con-

temporary painting with its gradations of tone to a bolder, more stylized technique, more expressive of the medium.

One of the finest, a beautiful

head of Thalassa from the fifth century may be compared with the early wall mosaics—Ravenna or Salonika—and the Arab mosaics of Jerusalem and Damascus are in a broad sense a later development of these Syrian traditions. There are tantalizing references to mosaics in a number of the ancient writers and these would be an inestimable aid in forming a clearer

idea of the development of the art, if even a few fragments of such work remained. A pavement on a vessel belonging to Hieron II, king of Syracuse, in the third century B. C., told the story of the Iliad in a series of panels. Ptolomey Philopator, 222-205 B. C., had a figured pavement on one of his pleasure boats for the Nile. Possibly the fragments found in the lake of Nemi and now in the Museo Nazionale at Rome, composed of very small tesserz of glass, serpentine, and porphyry belonged to a

similar pavement for one of the pleasure galleys of Caligula.

According

to Spartian, one of the authors of the Historia Augusta, there was a mosaic in the vault of a portico in the gardens of Commodus which portrayed Pescennius Niger, who became emperor in 193, in the midst of his friends and holding the sacred objects of the cult of Isis. The fact that the early wall mosaics, as those of Santa Costanza

and the nave of Santa Maria Maggiore, have light backgrounds may show that they started from the same tradition. Moreover, some of the motifs in the vaults of Santa Costanza are similar to those of the pave-

ments.

The recently discovered pavement at Aquileia," one of the most

extensive and beautiful examples which has come down to us, is a Christian work of the early fourth century. In its combination of genre subjects, fishing scenes, realistic portraiture, and the symbolism of the

54

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

catacombs, it clearly anticipates the style of the mosaics of Santa Costanza, executed a little later. The popular Nilotic scenes were taken over by the early Christians in the dome of Santa Costanza, and in the apses of the Lateran and Santa Maria Maggiore; and Choricus of Gaza,

writing in the fifth century, describes a similar scene in a church in his native town. The naturalistic backgrounds in the Old Testament scenes of Santa Maria Maggiore are in the same general tradition as the Pompeian frescoes and the Theocritan strongly-modelled, colorful heads of the Orthodox at Ravenna have from the Baths of Caracalla; and pointed out.

idylls of the pavements. Even the of the Apostles from the Baptistery a certain affinity with the pugilists many other resemblances might be

These points in common between classical pavements and the first Christian mosaics merely show that the early decorators of the churches took over a process that was already at hand, and with it, certain tradi-

tional modes of representation.

But the aims of the two were widely

divergent, and almost from the first, the older classical traditions exist almost as anachronisms, or survivals tending to disappear. The Christian artists had a sense of color which the Romans probably never possessed;

the pale backgrounds became richer and soon changed to blue or gold. The few remaining traces of wall mosaic before the fourth century and Santa Costanza are so scanty that it is difficult to form an idea of the actual appearance of such work. All that do survive are on a small

scale, such as the niches for fountains discovered at Pompeii (8 and 9), with classical motifs in a few strongly contrasted tones. In Pompeii, even columns were covered with mosaic (10). The ground was usually blue; reds were obtained by cubes of pottery, lava, and ferruginous stone; even shell was used in some of the compositions. The use of gold cubes was extremely rare at this period. Even more dependent upon pavement technique than these Pompeian mosaics is a vault decoration discovered at Hadrian's Villa. There

HELLENISTIC

AND

ROMAN

MOSAICS

SS

is a floral-geometric design in black on a ground of white marble tesserz. This vault belongs to a house which has been dated as early as republican times, later incorporated by Hadrian in the imperial residence, and, therefore, this may be the earliest extant example we have of the application of mosaic to walls or ceilings. Another example of the second century A. D., still showing a close relationship to the pavements, is the vault of a circular domed nymphzum near the Via Tiburtina in Rome, which is

completely covered with a ground of white marble tessere.

Corrado

Ricci ** suggests that the Romans were led to use mosaic instead of paint-

ing on walls as they had discovered its resistance to dampness and water in pavements and in the pools of the baths. It was, therefore, an easy step to employ it in fountain niches as at Pompeii. In these niches we have our first apse decorations on a small scale.

For more extensive wall mosaics we have to fall back upon literary references. St. Augustine in his De Civitate Dei describes mosaic pictures on the esplanade of the harbor of Carthage which were probably

in the realistic, picturesque style of the Alexandrian landscapes, seen in the Pompeian

frescoes and some

of the pavements;

the style which

lingers on in the nave mosaics of Santa Maria Maggiore. Trebellius Pollio tells us that the house of Tetricus, the Gallic emperor conquered by Aurelian in 273, still existed on the Coelian Hill

at the time of Constantine.

Here there was a mosaic of Aurelian receiv-

ing the sceptre and the civic crown. Procopius relates an extraordinary legend about a mosaic of Theodoric the Goth displayed in the Roman Forum. The head of this figure fell a short time before the death of Theodoric. Eight years later more of the figure disappeared at the

time of the death of his successor Athalaric, and still more disappeared when the queen Amalasuntha perished. What little remained entirely vanished when the Goths were driven from Rome. There was still another mosaic of Theodoric on the facade of a church at Pavia. The king was represented as fully armed with lance and shield. The so-called *Sylvanus" of the Lateran,” originally discovered at

56

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Ostia, is one of the few (11), draped in white, sive in its simplicity. contemporary with the

existing wall mosaics of pagan origin. The figure stands out against the blue background, impresThis is probably a work of the fourth century, mosaics of Santa Costanza.

Although it was only after the triumph of the Church that Christianity seized upon mosaic as one of its great mediums of expression, a

few examples from the Catacombs have come down to us? The crypt of St. Eusebius had a cantharus flanked by birds. In St. Calixtus, a lost mosaic, described in the eighteenth century, showed Christ seated on a globe between St. Peter and St. Paul, the Resurrection of Lazarus, and another scene. The two portraits of Maria Simplicia and Flavius Julius Julianus from the Catacomb of Ciriacus, now in the Biblioteca Chigi, are so much restored that they have little value. They are typical of the

late-Roman manner of the early fifth century. This brief discussion of the probable origins of the art and of the early pavements will serve as an introduction to the subject with which

we are primarily concerned—the Christian wall mosaics. We have now arrived at the point where the Church is to emerge

from obscurity and revolutionize the art of the Roman world.

We shall

see, in regard to mosaic, how this essentially pavement technique of the Romans was transformed by a diversity of influences and an interplay of, seemingly, the most antagonistic traditions, into a vehicle for expressing with incomparable splendor the profoundest convictions of the Middle Ages.

ROMAN

MOSAICS THE

FROM

SEVENTH

THE

FOURTH

CENTURIES

TO

Roman

Mosaics

FROM

THE

FOURTH

TO THE

SEVENTH

CENTURIES

Official recognition of the Church a great impetus to art.—Origin and development of Early Christian iconography: Eastern and Western influences: theories and facts—The new iconography defined.—Lost mosaics of the Holy Land.—Santa Costanza.— Santa Pudenziana.—Santa Maria Maggiore.—Santa Sabina.—San Paolo-fuori-le-mura—The Lateran Baptistery.—SS. Cosma e Damiano.—San Lorenzo-fuori-le-mura.—Lost mosaics: Old St. Peter's and the Lateran, Sant-Agata dei Goti, San'Andrea Catabarbara.—Summary of the styles.

IV.

ROMAN

MOSAICS THE

FROM

SEVENTH

THE

FOURTH

TO

CENTURIES"

When the Emperor Constantine officially recognized Christianity in

313, the art of the catacombs came up from hiding underground and began that remarkable transformation which it was to undergo during the next three hundred years. The earlier impressionism and symbolism,

based upon the Pompeian-Alexandrian tradition prevalent under the Late Empire, was no longer adequate to express the ideals of a triumphant Church, the self-confidence of an already remarkably organized and wealthy religion which was constantly growing. A more splendid and

luxurious art was required to crystalize ideas and to spread faith. —

The new monumental style is in marked contrast to the symbolic art of the Early Christians. It is formal, abstract, and of solemn grandeur, with little or none of that naive, appealing quality which we find

in the frescoes of the catacombs.

Figures predominate

in the com-

positions and are not merely incidents in the decorative scheme. New types are evolved, Our Lord, the Apostles, historical scenes from the Old and the New Testaments, and many others which we shall see in mosaics of the first centuries. What was the origin of this new style? For the past thirty years, research has increasingly shown the tremendous róle played by the

Near East in the development of Christian art, both as to style and iconography. Its roots go back to the earliest civilizations of Mesopotamia and Iran. It was fused with the art of the great Hellenistic centers—Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus and others—themselves imbued with the native Eastern traditions which became so strongly revived during the first centuries of the Christian era. Much actual inconography, such as the so-called Syrian type of the bearded Christ, was, perhaps, evolved in Palestine and Syria and spread abroad by the pil-

60

A HISTORY

grimages.

OF MOSAICS

Other conceptions originated in Egypt, Asia Minor and its

hinterland, and elsewhere. It may be well to say here that we cannot at this time speak of Byzantine influence in a narrow sense as applying definitely to that locality. Byzantium was one of a number of centers busy in formulating an art out of the many diverse elements which it received, and it is not until the sixth century, in the time of Justinian, that it developed what we may call a well defined style. Granting the great influence of the Near East in the formation of this style, it is well, however, not to deny all credit to the classical tradition of Rome. This classical tradition may be taken to include the

heritage which Rome had received from the Etruscans, from Greece, and from the later Hellenistic civilization which, in turn, was also closely in touch with the East. That which we may call Roman art was widely

diffused throughout the Empire and returns to influence in some degree the whole of the Middle Ages. Rome and Ravenna were probably great creative centers as well as the cities of the Near East and had their share in fusing together the many elements which go to make up Early Christian art. In all these discussions about origins of style perhaps too much

emphasis has been put upon mere terminology and such words as “Roman”, “Hellenistic”, and “Eastern” have been used as pivots for much over-polemical writing which has tended to confuse the main facts. The Early-Christian world of the Mediterranean was, after all, fairly compact and had a generally diffused civilization which we may call Greco-Roman if we like, and the art of the period is essentially based upon this culture however much it may be modified at times by the Near-Eastern hinterland. It is not necessary here to speak of the lavish adornment of the countless churches which sprang up throughout the Empire in the enthusiasm of a new faith. In such splendid interiors, where the cost was not to be considered, it is not strange that mosaics covered the walls in preference to frescoes.

ROMAN

MOSAICS FROM

FOURTH

TO SEVENTH

CENTURIES

61

The Gospels ** were the greatest source for the new iconography; scenes from the Old Testament were developed along the naves of Santa Maria Maggiore, the Lateran, and Old St. Peter's, and New Testament subjects were shown at an early date throughout the East, at Santa Costanza, in Rome, and elsewhere; in the Baptistery at Naples, and at

Ravenna. Almost of equal importance were the visions of the Apocalypse. From this source come the figures and symbols which adorn the apses and the triumphal arches of the Roman basilicas; the enthroned

Lamb with the book of the Seven Seals, the Seven Candle-Sticks, and the symbols of the Evangelists, which were especially popular in Western art, although not unknown in the Near East. Also, the TwentyFour Elders who offer their crowns to God or to the Mystic Lamb; the Four Rivers of Paradise, and often the souls of the faithful, who under the form of stags (Psalm XLI) drink from their source. The Twelve Sheep, symbolical of the Apostles, issue from Jerusalem, the city of the

Ecclesia ex Circumcisione, and Bethlehem, the city of the Ecclesia ex Gentibus, the Church of the Gentiles, a favorite subject, especially at

Rome, for the lower part of the apse.

Sometimes the two cities are

represented under the guise of women, as at Santa Sabina. By their opposition they show the parallelism which is one of the fundamental points of all this Early Christian iconography.

God the Father is represented as a symbol in the upper part of the apses where the Divine Hand issues from the clouds, holding the crown of recompense, with the Dove as the Holy Ghost. In addition to this symbolism and to the other motifs which are retained from catacomb art, we have the more realistic treatment of the historical scenes from the Gospels and the miracles of Christ.

Realism is also shown in the fondness for portraiture” and the representation of living persons, the founders of churches and other important ecclesiastics, as in the Roman apses; at Ravenna and Parenzo; St. Demetrius at Salonika.

and at

62

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Without attempting here to trace the origin and development of individual motifs, we should bear in mind that in all probability the actual portrayals of these themes were largely evolved in Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Asia Minor, and the flourishing Christian communities of the hinterland, and that they show a combination of late phases of Hellenism with the vigorous artistic revival of the Near East. In

Italy and other places where the sway of Rome

was strongest these

conceptions are more definitely modified by the survivals of Late Roman art, which, as we have seen, was itself a combination of the late aspects of Hellenism, especially those of Alexandria, with a certain native ItaloEtruscan realism. When we speak of Roman art we include that Romanized part of the empire of which the capital was the focal point. This art was cosmopolitan and imperial in the true sense. Pavements from Syria to Britain show a common origin of style. The core of the Early Christian figure style is always Hellenistic, or classical, however much it may have been modified by Oriental or other influences. The early mosaics of the churches of the Holy Land, which have all perished, must have had a tremendous influence elsewhere, as they

were being constantly seen and admired by the throngs of pilgrims.

The

subjects of several of these are doubtless reflected in some of the small objects which the pilgrims carried away with them. Thus, an Adoration of the Magi on one of the Monza ampulle probably copies” the mosaic on the facade of the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem,” which the soldiers of Chosroes are said to have spared in the sixth century because the Magi had Persian caps. The Virgin is seated with the Child full-face

with a star-like wheel over her head.

The shepherds are at the right,

and the Magi at the left. We know from early writers that there were mosaics in Constantine’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre, both in the

atrium, and the dome where Constantine and Helena were shown holding the Cross between them. Probably all of the important churches of the Holy Land and of Syria were decorated with mosaics._

ROMAN

MOSAICS FROM

FOURTH

TO SEVENTH

CENTURIES

63

The mosaics of the church of Santa Costanza? at Rome mark the transition between those of purely Roman antique tradition and those of the Christian period.

This circular domed structure with a surrounding

barrel-vault supported on coupled columns, was erected by Constantine as a mausoleum for his daughter, Constantia, according to the Liber Pontificalis. Yt is more probable, however, that it was erected later, at least as late as the middle of the fourth century. Constantine's daughter

survived him by seventeen years and it does not seem likely that he would have built her the mausoleum during her lifetime. Then, too, the construction seems to be at least as late as the middle of the century, so that we may consider it to date from the time of the Emperor ConStans, 352-360. In the fifth century it was converted into a baptistery. Formerly, the dome, as well as the ring-vault and the niches cut out of the heavy wall, was covered with mosaics, but now practically all that remain are those of the barrel-vault and the two larger niches, or apses, the dome having fallen a victim to the wave of Baroque enthusiasm in the seventeenth century. The interesting design of this dome has, however, been preserved to us by old drawings, one of which was engraved and published by

Ciampini?

(12).

At the base was a river scene—a Nilotic scene of

purely Alexandrian tradition like the famous pavement of Palestrina— with cupids engaged in fishing and swimming, surrounded by dolphins and aquatic birds. Caryatids, standing on acanthus scrolls flanked by panthers, support other scrolls and smaller figures which form a decora-

tive scheme dividing the dome into twelve sections with smaller compartments above. These inter-spaces contained scenes from the Old and the New Testaments, some of which have been identified, and they probably formed a more or less complete Biblical cycle, such as we find at Santa Maria Maggiore. The ring-vault has been almost entirely preserved and consists of

eleven compartments of ornamental motifs, some of which are repeated

64

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

(13). These mosaics are composed of marble, not glass cubes, and the nearly white backgrounds, the narrow range of color—dark green, brown, red, and yellow of the natural stone—place them in the antique tradition of the first half of the fourth century, and we may conclude that they were executed soon after the completion of the building. Perhaps the most interesting panel is the vintage scene (14). Here, a vine treated in a naturalistic manner, doubtless the symbolic vineyard of Our Lord, covers the background. Robust cupids pluck the grapes, and, at intervals, there are birds perched on the vines. The treatment of the vine is strikingly similar to certain late antique pavements, especially the one from the Villa of the Laberii at Uthina which we have already mentioned. In the center, is a bust of a young man whom some have supposed to be the emperor, Crispus. In two of the corners, diagonally opposite each other, cupids carry grapes to the vats, aided by bullock-carts; in the other two corners they rhythmically tramp out the juice. This same composition is repeated in another compartment with the substitution of a female bust in the center, which possibly represents Constantia. It is not strange that archzologists of the eigh-

teenth century thought that these subjects were entirely pagan

and

probably portrayed a Triumph of Bacchus.

In another section (15), we have a great variety of objects scattered in profusion; branches, flowers, fruit, birds, all so naturalistically treated that they are easily identified. Two doves on a bowl recall the wellknown “Doves of the Capitoline" found at Hadrian's Villa. Other compartments show a geometric design of crosses and rosettes, or lozenges forming large stars. Two show, in a series of medallions, birds, rosettes, heads of young men, and dancing figures of Eros and Psyche. In one, we see two sheep—the only Christian symbols in a typically antique composition. Some of these motifs are similar to those in the famous fourth century pavement from Kabr Hiram, now in the Louvre. The two niches, or apses, form a striking contrast with the vault,

ROMAN MOSAICS FROM

FOURTH TO SEVENTH CENTURIES

65;

both in technique and in subject. The left apse (16) shows the Traditio Legis, Our Lord between Peter and Paul, giving the Gospels to the former. Although badly altered by restoration, the heads of the Apostles are already of the types which distinguish them throughout all later Christian art. At the base, four symbolic sheep turn towards the Rivers of Paradise, and at the sides are the two cities, Bethlehem and Jerusalem, the Ecclesia ex Gentibus and the Ecclesia ex Circumcisione, with the symbolic palm trees—a rather abstract interpretation of a composition which we will find often in later mosaics.

The apse on the right (17), which has also suffered from restoration, shows Christ seated upon the Globe and an advancing figure, who is usually interpreted as St. Peter, receiving the Keys of the Church. The Christ here is already of the “Syrian” bearded type; the beardless

St. Peter is doubtless a restoration. Ten palm trees, one much smaller than the others, complete the composition. The light background follows the antique tradition. The great divergence between these mosaics and those of the ringvault have led certain critics, among them Venturi? and Toesca,™ to consider them later, probably dating from the fifth century when the mausoleum was converted into a baptistery. Others, including de Rossi and Wilpert, think that they date, like the vault, from the foundation of the building. They believe that the subjects were new and more difficult to treat than those more nearly in the contemporary antique manner. There still exists in one of the smaller niches a fragment of mosaic with stars on a white ground, and above, a portion of a circle which contained the Constantian monogram executed in gold cubes. In the sixteenth century, Ugonio? saw in the apse at the end of the rotunda, above the principal altar, a mosaic of Our Lord in the midst of the Apostles, a composition evidently allied to that in Santa Pudenziana, of

which it may have been a prototype. The curious mingling of pagan and Christian subjects which we

66

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

find at Santa Costanza is also seen in the remains of a mosaic which was recently discovered in a hypogeum at the corner of the Via Po and the Via Livenza in Rome. This hypogeum was constructed in the midst of tombs belonging to an earlier pagan cemetery, and probably dates

from the middle of the fourth century.

There are frescoes, pagan in

origin, showing Diana and other mythological subjects, and above these, are the fragments of the mosaics which include representations of cupids fishing, reminiscent of Santa Costanza, and Moses causing water to gush forth from a rock with a kneeling soldier drinking. The light backgrounds and the classical conception of the figures are in the fourth century tradition of Santa Costanza.

The apse of Santa Pudenziana®® contains one of the noblest of the early Roman mosaics (18). This little church, between the Viminal and the Esquiline, on the site of the house of the senator, Pudens, is one of the most venerable in Rome, and tradition has it that here Saint Peter said his first mass. With the exception of a portion of the apse it has now been transformed in the style of the Baroque. In the center of the mosaic, Christ, clothed in a tunic of gold, is

seated on a throne.

He extends His right arm almost horizontally in a

gesture of benediction, in the manner of the ancient orators when they

wished to command attention. In His left hand He holds an open book with the words: DOMINUS- CONSER- VATOR- ECCLESLEPUDENTI- ANZ, “The Lord, Guardian of the Church of Pudens," in accordance with the most ancient texts which give the title of the church to St. Pudens rather than to his daughter, Santa Pudenziana. The cushioned throne is embellished with geometric designs and over the back is draped a brocade. Ten of the twelve Apostles are seated either side of Christ, two having disappeared when the apse was made

narrower and the whole composition cut down in consequence.

They

are clothed in the tunic, in the manner of Roman senators, and most of them stretch their right hands towards Christ in sign of respect. St.

ROMAN

MOSAICS

FROM

FOURTH

TO SEVENTH

CENTURIES

67

Peter, on the right, and St. Paul, on the left, are in profile, and St. Paul

holds an open book with the words: LI- BER-GENERAT-TIONISLX., the opening words of the Book of St. Matthew;

tion is a modern restoration.

but this inscrip-

Behind each of these figures, there is a

female figure draped in gold, holding a crown of laurel over their heads.

It is now generally conceded that these figures represent the Ecclesia ex Circumcisione and the Ecclesia ex Gentibus rather than the daughters

of Pudens—Santa Pudenziana and Santa Prassede.

The Jewish Church

crowns St. Peter and that of the Gentiles, St. Paul. In the background stretches a portico in the form of a hemicycle, covered with golden tiles, above which are seen the buildings of a city. These buildings have been variously conjectured to represent an ideal conception of the New Jerusalem, Rome of the fourth century, and the actual Jerusalem of the period. There is good reason to believe that there is an attempt here to reproduce the structures of the Holy Sepul-

chre as they existed at that time.” On a mount behind the head of Christ rises a great jewelled cross of the so-called Golgotha type, and in the clouds with their tones of red, pale-green, and deep-blue are the winged symbols of the Evangelists, one of their first appearances in art, two of them nearly obliterated by the narrowing of the apse.

This work is now generally regarded as dating from the pontificate of Siricius, 384-398, or possibly from the very beginning of the fifth

century under Pope Innocent," executed under the administration of the titulary priests, Ilicius, Leopardus, and Maximus. It was restored and perhaps modified under Hadrian I. at the end of the eighth century. In 1588 it was mutilated by the narrowing of the apse, the erection of

the baldachino later removed a portion of the lower part, and in 1831 nearly the whole of the right side was entirely done over. Undoubtedly, at the lower part of the composition, there were originally the Twelve Sheep issuing from Bethlehem and Jerusalem.

68

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

In spite of the misfortunes which this mosaic has undergone, it still has an air of solemn grandeur, the symbol of triumphant Christianity. The Christ is no longer the simple figure of the catacombs but a god, majestically enthroned. The Apostles are Roman senators used to command. It was at about this time in Rome that the statue of Victory was removed from the Senate and the Vestal Virgins dispersed. Some have seen evidences of strong Eastern influence in the type of the Christ and the sumptuous use of gold cubes. The jewelled cross which resembles the one in San Stefano Rotondo seems considerably later in style than the rest of the composition, and may well be an interpolation due to the restoration of Hadrian I at the end of the eighth century; but the fine spatial effect of the mosaic as a whole and the types of the Apostles relate it to the classical tradition. The old portico of the Lateran Baptistery originally contained two

apsidal mosaics."

One of these, which represented The Shepherding of

the Sheep of the Church has long since been destroyed, but the other,

above the altar dedicated to the saints, Rufinus and Secundus, still exists and probably dates from the end of the fourth century (19).

On the deep blue of the background a huge acanthus is developed in scrolls of shimmering green bearing flowers of coral and gold. This decorative composition is probably symbolical in character, the promise of the New Life of the Vine, in line with the conceptions of catacomb art. In the fan-shaped motif at the top, reminiscent of Pompeian design, are the Lamb (Christ) and four doves representing the Evangelists. Below these are six jewelled crosses of the Golgotha type. In the blue band which runs at the base of the composition there are still seven of the original twelve crosses of gold, symbols of the Apostles. The acanthus scrolls are still treated naturalistically, but they are much more carefully composed and unified than in Santa Costanza, and produce an Oriental richness of effect. It is not necessary, however, to go to the East to discover their direct inspiration. Roman art made

ROMAN

MOSAICS FROM

FOURTH

TO SEVENTH

CENTURIES

69

use of similar decoration, as on the slabs of the Ara Pacis of the time of Augustus. Vine scrolls continued to be a favorite motif of the later Roman mosaicists in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in the apses

of San Clemente and Santa Maria Maggiore.

The East Christian in-

fluence comes, rather, from the greater brilliancy of color and the slightly more formalized treatment of a long-familiar theme. In spite of the fact that it is oppressed by its Baroque entourage, this is one of the most beautiful of the decorative mosaics. The subtle shadings of the blues and the greens, the vivid tones of the flowers, and the skillful use of gold to heighten the effect, show the hand of a master. The early mosaics of Santa Maria Maggiore” (20-27) occupy an almost preponderant position in the history of the art, both on account of the fact that we have here the only nearly complete Biblical cycle preserved to us from the early period, and also because of the difficulty of giving them a precise date. It is known that this great basilica was founded by Pope Liberius, 352-366, who may have converted an already existing private palace into a church. The basilica was restored and perhaps entirely reconstructed by Sixtus III, 432-440, who rededicated

it to the Virgin Mary.

Sixtus had followed with lively interest the

debates of the Council of Ephesus which a short time before had pro-

claimed the divinity of Mary, Mother of God. The mosaics in question consist of two series (20): one, the Old Testament scenes above the colonnades of the nave, and secondly, the scenes taken from the Apocrypha which adorn the triumphal arch. The problem which has puzzled archeologists for the last half-century is whether to consider both series as dating from the time of Liberius or from the time of Sixtus III, or to give the mosaics in the nave to an early period, probably the time of Liberius, and those of the triumphal arch to the reconstruction of Sixtus III after the Council of Ephesus. Without going further into the intricacies of this discussion, it is perhaps better to examine the mosaics themselves before we pass judgment. An

70

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

added difficulty comes from the numerous and unfortunate restorations which they have undergone, and from the fact that they are badly seen. The details can probably be better studied from photographs than by standing in the church. There were originally forty-two separate mosaic pictures in the nave, of which twenty-seven now exist (21-23). With the exception of four, they are all divided into two super-imposed parts, each part containing one or more scenes. The subjects are taken from the books of Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy and Joshua, and illustrate episodes from the lives of Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Joshua. The first scene on the left side of the nave, starting from the choir,

represents the Sacrifice of Melchisedec

(Genesis, XIV,

18).

Melchi-

sedec advances to meet Abraham who arrives on horseback escorted by his following. The high priest is clothed in a white tunic and a white mantle bordered with purple, fastened over the chest by a golden fibula, In his hands he holds a basket with two round loaves of bread, and at his feet is an urn for the wine. The figure of Abraham, except for the right arm and the left hand which holds the horse's bridle, is a restoration. Behind, are soldiers in the costumes of Roman legionaries. The reliance upon the antique is brought out even more forcibly in the next panel which; in three scenes combined in the Roman man-

ner, illustrates the story of Abraham and the Three Angels (21).

In

the upper portion, Abraham rushes to meet the angels, exhorting them to rest. The angels are shown without wings according to an early

tradition. In the Hebrew text they were described as having the appearance of men, and they were therefore represented without distinguishing attributes. Later, they were associated with the Trinity and were given nimbi or a mandorla. A further development was the singling out of one angel as the Logos to whom Abraham addressed his speech, as here, in this mosaic, where he is provided with a mandorla. Below, to the left, Abraham, with the gesture of a Roman orator, orders Sarah to

ROMAN MOSAICS FROM

prepare the meal.

FOURTH TO SEVENTH

CENTURIES

71

Finally, at the right, are the angels seated before

a table upon which are three conical loaves of bread, and Abraham is

about to serve them the veal which has been prepared. This is one of the best preserved of the mosaics, as only the lower portion containing the amphora for the wine and a narrow strip running around the edge of the panel havé been redone in stucco. Everything about this composition shows a strong dependence upon the antique: the method of combining several scenes in one, in the manner of the Roman historical reliefs, the types of the figures and their classical draperies, the interest in the picturesque details of the background, and, above all, the boldly im-

pressionistic technique which is a translation in mosaic of the best traditions of what we usually call Pompeian painting. Take, for example, the head of the angel seated at the table on the right. Here, comparatively few cubes are used to give an extraordinary sense of reality. The eyes are achieved, each with only two contrasting cubes of black and white,

but with a sureness of touch which is hardly equalled until the painting of the late Renaissance. These same qualities are apparent in more or less degree in the rest of the series which we may briefly enumerate without examining in detail. One of the most beautiful is the next in order, The Separation

of Abraham and Lot (22), with the noble figures of the two brothers” Then follow: Isaac Blessing Jacob; Rachel Announcing to Laban the Arrival of Jacob; the Meeting of Laban and Jacob; Jacob Asking Rachel in Marriage; the Marriage of Jacob; the Compact Between Jacob and

Laban;

Jacob Ordered by God to Return to His Own

Country;

the

Meeting of Esau and Jacob; Hamor and Sichem Coming to Ask Jacob for the Hand of Dinah; the Brothers of Dinah before Hamor and

Sichem.

On the right side of the nave:

the Adoption of Moses by

Pharaoh's Daughter; Moses in the Midst of the Philosophers; the Marriage of Moses and Sephora (23); the Passage of the Red Sea; Murmurings of the People of Israel; Miracle of the Quails; Miracle of the Waters; Amalek Coming to Fight the Israelites; Combat against the

72

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Amalectites; Return of the Spies Sent by Moses;

God Protects Moses

and His Companions; Moses ites and His Death on Mount of the Jordan; Joshua Sends Angel; Return of the Spies;

Giving the Nabo; The Two Spies the Fall of

Book of the Law to the IsraelArk of the Covenant; Passage to Jericho; Joshua Meets an Jericho; the Siege of Gabaon;

Great Battle Near Gabaon;

Joshua Stops the Sun and the Moon;

the

Captured Kings Brought to Joshua. The two panels which terminate the series are paintings of the sixteenth century. Everywhere throughout this great historical cycle we find the same classical characteristics which have already been noted; the naturalistic and lively, if often crude modelling of the figures which sometimes bear

a certain resemblance to those gladiators and pugilists of the well-known mosaic from the Baths of Caracalla, and the emphasis upon light-colored and picturesque backgrounds. The crowded battle scenes spring from the same tradition as those on the column of Trajan. Some of the figures, notably Pharaoh’s daughter in the scene of the Adoption of Moses, have a certain Oriental character, especially in the richness of their costumes and the employment of gold cubes, but these details, which seem a little out of harmony with the rest of the work, may be due to an early restoration.

Turning to the triumphal arch (24-27), we no longer have scenes of Biblical narrative but subjects relating to the infancy of Christ. At the center of the arch, in a medallion, is the Jewelled Throne with the Book of the Seven Seals as described in the vision of the Apocalypse, probably the earliest representation of this subject in mosaic. Above, on either side, are the symbols of the Evangelists and figures of St. Peter and St. Paul. These figures have been considerably restored. Below the medallion is the inscription: XYSTVS EPISCPVS PLEBI DEI, “Sixtus, bishop, to the people of God,” which has caused this work to be attributed to Sixtus III. This inscription must have been inserted when the mosaics were already in place, as it encroaches upon the com-

ROMAN

MOSAICS FROM

FOURTH

TO SEVENTH

CENTURIES

73

position. It, therefore, only shows that the work cannot be later than the middle of the fifth century. The top-most scene at the left represents the Annunciation according to the account of the Pseudo-Matthew. The Virgin is seated and dressed in a rich oriental costume, and in accordance with the legend, is spinning the purple for the temple veil. Five angels stand about her, two of them turning towards the irresolute Joseph, as if to reassure him. These angels, unlike those in the scenes of the nave, are provided with wings. All of these figures are placed against a gold background which, above, changes into clouds of red and blue where the Dove and the angel of the Annunciation descend over the Virgin's head. During the recent restoration when the mosaic was removed the design for this scheme was discovered drawn in black on the plaster. The Virgin is shown as actually depicted and also a second flying angel which was never executed, and other minor differences; a precious document showing the artist experimented with two schemes. As a pendant scene, on the right, is the Presentation in the Temple. Mary, holding the Child, is preceded by Joseph who seems to be in the act of offering the Child to Simeon who rushes to meet them. The draped female figure next to Joseph represents the Prophetess Anna, according to the version of St. Luke, and between them is the figure of an angel. Simeon is followed by a crowd of priests and Levites, and in the background, is a temple with a figure in the tympanum which is usually interpreted as representing the Goddess Roma. The angel in the foreground at the extreme right is probably advising Joseph to flee to Egypt, but the figure of Joseph has been almost entirely removed by the cutting down of the mosaic on this side. On the left, below the Annunciation, we have the Adoration of the Magi. The infant Christ is seated on a jewelled throne with a red cushion and is clothed in a long white tunic decorated with purple claves. His head has a golden nimbus with a little cross. Above, is the star

74

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

which has guided the Magi, and behind the throne are four angels with blue nimbi.

At the left of the throne, is the almost obliterated

figure of the Virgin, spoiled by repainting, and at the right, is a nobly draped female figure which may represent the Ecclesia ex Circumcisione, or St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin. Two of the Magi, dressed in Persian costume, are seen bringing their gifts; the third has been de-

stroyed.

The walled town in the background is, doubtless, Bethlehem.

As a pendant to this, on the right, below the Presentation, we have a curious scene taken from the apocryphal account of the Pseudo-Matthew: Christ in Egypt before King Aphrodosius. According to tbe legend, the Holy Family sought refuge for the night in a certain Egyptian temple containing three hundred and sixty-five idols. As soon as Mary entered with the Child, the idols were thrown to earth and shattered. When the king, Aphrodosius, discovered this he came to prostrate himself before Jesus and abjured paganism. Thus, the scene here depicted explains itself: on the left, Aphrodosius and his followers have left their city to meet the child Jesus who is accompanied by Mary and Joseph and three angels.

The narrow and crowded composition on the left below the Adoration of the Magi represents the Massacre of the Innocents. The figure of Herod is seen at the extreme left—almost entirely restored—in the

midst of the Roman soldiers.

The only well preserved portion of the

mosaic is the group of mothers holding their children. Below this scene we have the walled city of Jerusalem, adorned with gold and precious stones, and five sheep as symbols of the Apostles, the sixth having disappeared under the adjacent Baroque pilaster. Opposite, on the right, to complete the scheme, are shown the Magi before Herod and Bethlehem with the symbolic sheep below. The Magi in their Persian costumes, stand before the nearly obliterated figure of Herod seated upon a throne. In the soffit of the arch there is a floral band

with

a border

of

ROMAN

MOSAICS FROM

FOURTH

TO SEVENTH

CENTURIES

75

alternating rectangles and ovals which becomes a common motif in later work in Rome, Ravenna and elsewhere. —— The subjects of these mosaics are generally considered to be a glori-

fication of the divinity of Mary as Mother of God, the doctrine which had been proclaimed by the Council of Ephesus in 431, and their probable execution under Sixtus III would bear this out. However, it is only fair to point out that the Virgin occupies a prominent position in but one subject, that of the Annunciation, and that the others seem to be more of a glorification of the divinity of the Infant Jesus. The iconography of these scenes presents a puzzling problem which has never been satisfactorily solved. The Annunciation, and, especially,

the Adoration of the Magi, where the Child is enthroned, are not represented in this manner elsewhere in Early Christian art. They belong probably to an Oriental-Hellenistic, and not a Roman tradition, and may have been inspired by miniatures or mural decorations which are now lost. The fact that the purely Egyptian subjects of King Aphrodosius is shown, as well as certain qualities of the style, make it seem probable that the prototypes were evolved in Alexandria. Now

that both series of mosaics have been reviewed, we are in a

better position to consider the problem of dating.

On the whole, the

triumphal arch differs both in conception and in technique from the nave. The figures of the arch have less relief and less light and shade than those of the nave, and the gold backgrounds are in marked contrast to the lighter and more naturalistically treated backgrounds of the Biblical cycle. However, certain close resemblances between the two make it seem by no means certain that a century separates them. Both, apparently, start from the same general Hellenistic traditions, even though the classical element is more prominent in the nave, and much of the variety and differences in quality may be due to different hands rather than to different periods. Compare, for example, the soldiers in

the Sacrifice of Melchisedec with those in the Massacre of the Innocents, or even the Virgin as represented on the arch with Pharaoh’s daughter |

76

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

in the finding of Moses. It is quite possible that in spite of their strong antique character, we do not have to go back as far as Liberius for the execution of the nave, but that both the nave and the triumphal arch were completed in the time of Sixtus III, or a little earlier. In any case it is difficult to conceive of the arch as having been executed earlier than the fifth century. It has recently been well restored without changing the original position of the tesserae. Technically, these mosaics are of a very high quality, and they prove that, even in this early period, the art had arrived at a point which, in some ways, was never surpassed. However, judged as a decorative whole, they are more or less of a failure. They are of too small a scale, and most of the compositions are too confused to be well seen at a distance, and they must always have had this defect, even though it is now accentuated by inferior restoration and the inharmonious Baroque surroundings.

The basilica of Santa Sabina? was originally entirely covered with mosaics.

Now

all that remains is the inscription of gold letters on a

blue ground which occupies the whole width of the interior wall over the entrance (28). It was executed under the pontificate of Celestine I, 422-432, who founded the church, and it describes this event. The beautiful proportions of this simple rectangular composition, the perfection of the lettering, and the nobility of the two female figures which enframe the inscription at the left and the right are in the best classical manner. The figures stand out on a gold ground. The one on the left, clothed in a long purple robe, represents the Ecclesia ex Circumcisione (29), and the pallium closely fitted over the head and even the type of features are characteristic of the women of Palestine. On the other hand, the figure at the right, the Ecclesia ex Gentibus, is shown as a Roman matron and resembles certain figures in Santa Maria Maggiore. At the time of Ciampini, towards the end of the seventeenth cen-

tury, additional mosaics were still preserved (30).

Above the inscrip-

ROMAN MOSAICS FROM-FÓURTH TO SEVENTH CENTURIES

77

tion, at the top of the windows, were the symbols of the Four Evangelists, and below, to the left and the right, St. Peter and St. Paul. On the arch of the tribune, Our Lord with a cruciferous nimbus was represented in a medallion, and at either side were seven similar medallions containing male busts yithout nimbi. The remainder of the composition showed the two cities, Bethlehem and Jerusalem, with a row of doves across the top.

The basilica of San Paolo-fuori-le-mura,"' founded by Constantine, was reconstructed after a fire, in 386, by Valentinian II and Theodosius. The work was finished by Honorius, 395-424, and his famous daughter, Galla Placidia, iin concert with Pope Leo I, 440-461, covered the trium-

phal arch with mosaics (31).

Earthquakes and fires seriously damaged

the building at different times until it was practically destroyed by the fire of 1823. "Therefore, the mosaics of the arch are almost entirely a restoration. In fact, the only undisputed piece of original work is the head of an angel, of excellent workmanship, now preserved in the local

museum. In this composition as it now exists there is a complete change of style; a violent break with preceding Roman mosaics and with classical traditions. In the center of the arch is a colossal bust of Our Lord in a medallion. The head is surrounded by a nimbus with nine rays. Christ

blesses in the Greek manner, and with His right hand holds over His shoulder a baton, which is undoubtedly the handle of a cross. The hard, stern countenance is far removed from the benign figure of Santa Pudenziana, and already anticipates the severe Byzantine type of the Pantocrator. Above, in the clouds, are the symbols of the Four Evangelists. Below these symbols, on either side, are the Twenty-four Elders of the Apocalypse, their first appearance in mosaic, if we may consider that this work dates from the middle of the fifth century; stiff, badly proportioned, monotonous figures clothed in white robes and bearing their

martyrs’ crowns.

At either side of the medallion of Christ are winged

angels holding batons, much smaller in scale than the rest of the figures.

78

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Below this upper portion, and separated from it by bands of inscriptions, are St. Peter holding the keys and St. Paul with the sword, obviously executed in the style of the nineteenth century restorers. The authenticity of the inscriptions is doubtful on account of the numerous restora-

tions.” This abstract and formalized scheme has little in common with Santa Pudenziana or Santa Maria Maggiore. The stiff figures stand out on an opaque gold ground. The Twenty-Four Elders show an inferior kind of Oriental conventionalism. If the composition actually dates from the time of Galla Placidia, the artisans probably came from Ravenna or the East. But the style is quite different from any of the contemporary work at Ravenna, such as the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia or the Baptistery of the Orthodox, just as it is different from the preceding Roman mosaics or those which follow it. It is difficult, therefore, to fit it into the fifth century; in fact, in some respects, it more resembles Roman work of the ninth century; but we must also consider that much of the apparent crudeness and hard quality comes from restoration and that there is no proof as yet that the composition is not the original one.

The little oratory of St. John the Evangelist, connected with the Baptistery of the Lateran, was constructed by Pope Hilarius, 461-468.

The vault with its mosaics on a gold ground is still well preserved (32). In the center is the Lamb, surrounded by a garland of flowers, ears of wheat, and olive branches; early symbols of the four seasons and of the Resurrection. The garland is surrounded by a border of blue stones and double spirals and is prolonged in the form of a cross. At the interior angles of this square are four red discs traversed by a cross, and it is surrounded by four festoons of flowers and foliage. There is a similar border at the base of the composition. The groins of the vault

have bands of foliage and dolphins which terminate at the angles of the square, but that at the base of the groins is modern. Each of the eight compartments thus formed contains two birds facing a vase of fruit,

ROMAN

MOSAICS FROM

FOURTH

TO SEVENTH

CENTURIES

79

and in them may be recognized the antique symbols of the four elements: ducks, as emblems of water; partridges representing the earth; pigeons, the air; and parrots, fire. The vases of fruit, like the ancient cornucopia, recall the fertility of the earth. The story goes that Hilarius, while still a deacon, was sent by Pope

Leo the Great to the Council of Ephesus in 449, and not wishing to take part in the demonstrations against Flavian, the patriarch of Constantinople, he escaped and took refuge near the tomb of St. John the Evange-

list. He later dedicated this oratory to the saint in sign of gratitude, and there is still an inscription relating to this over the entrance door. With the sixth century, we come to one of the very finest achieve-

ments of the art in Rome, the apse of SS. Cosma e Damiano ** (33), executed during the pontificate of Felix IV, 526-530. The church was constructed in the old temple of Maxentius, and the original bronze

door, flanked by its two columns of porphyry, may still be seen from the Forum. Unfortunately, this mosaic has also suffered from restorations and from the reconstruction of the church. The pavement has been raised, bringing the apse down to a much lower level, and the apse itself, as well as the arch, have both been cut down and provided with Baroque

embellishments.

But, in spite of its cramped position and the above-

mentioned mutilations, it still gives an almost overwhelming impression

of solemn splendor, and some critics have not hesitated to pronounce it the most beautiful mosaic in Rome. In the center is the figure of Christ (34), bearded, and clothed in a tunic and mantle of gold with golden nimbus, standing against a pathway of glowing sun-set clouds which contrast with the somber blue of the background. He holds the volumen, or scroll, in the left hand, while the right arm is stretched out in the commanding gesture of an orator. A strip of lighter blue, below, is labelled JORDANES in silver letters, here representing the River of Life. A note of mystic symbolism runs through the whole composition, as the palms at the extreme left and right represent Paradise and the phoenix over the one on the left is

8o

A HISTORY

the emblem of immortality.

OF MOSAICS

At the left and the right of Christ, St. Paul

and St. Peter, draped in the classical toga, present the titular saints, Cosmas and Damianus, who carry their martyrs! crowns (35, 36). The figure of Felix IV holding a model of the church, at the extreme left, is entirely a restoration of the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries and clashes with the rest of the work. On the extreme right, is St. Theodore clad in a yellow chlamys. He also, carries a martyr's crown. The almost rigid formality and symmetry of this composition and its treatment as a piece of sumptuous decoration is a new note in Roman art and has little to do with the earlier classical tradition. In fact, it is the first great example in Rome of the so-called Eastern, or Byzantine, style. The sturdy, forceful figures still retain something of the antique, but we also find these same qualities in contemporary Eastern art. They also have affinities with the mosaics of Ravenna, especially the Apostles

of San Vitale, but it is not necessary to suppose a direct connection between the two. They are both, rather, the result of the interdependence and cosmopolitan character of the art of the period. Urban VIII cut down the arch and inserted under the soffit the present Baroque archivolt. He also placed a window in the top of the vault of the apse which destroyed the sacred monogram and the Hand of God which held a wreath over the head of Christ. The lower band of the apse, with a gold background, has, in the center, the Lamb with silver nimbus, standing on a mount from which flow the Four Rivers of Paradise, designated by their names: GEON, FYSON, TIGRIS, EUFRATA. At each side, six sheep, symbols of the Apostles, issue from Bethlehem and Jerusalem. 'The town and the first three sheep on the left are entirely restored. The nimbus of the Lamb

and the word JORDANES are the first examples in Rome of the use of silver cubes, which are occasionally employed in the East, and later, at the end of the thirteenth century, in the apse of Santa Maria Maggiore.

ROMAN

MOSAICS FROM

FOURTH

TO SEVENTH

CENTURIES

81

At the base of this frieze, runs an inscription of gold letters on a

blue ground, interesting because of the insight it gives as to the point of view of those who were responsible for this kind of decoration:

AVLA DI CLARIS RADIAT SPECIOSA METALLIS IN QUA PLVS FIDEI LUX PRETIOSA MICAT MARTYRIBVS MEDICIS POPVLO SPES CERTA SALVTIS VENIT ET EX SACRO CREVIT HONORE LOCVS OPTVLIT HOC DNO FELIX ANTISTE DIGNUM MVNVS VT AETHERIA VIVAT IN ARCE POLI. “The house of God shines with the brilliancy of the purest metals, and the light of the faith glows there more preciously. The physician martyrs have assured the salvation of the people, and a sacred honor has

been attached to this place.

The pontiff, Felix, has offered to God this

gift worthy of Him so that he may live in the celestial domains." The arch has beeen sadly abbreviated, but the central part of the scheme may still be well seen, and although damaged, it seems to be less restored than the apse itself. Here, also, is one of the Apocalyptic visions of St. John. In the center there is a golden disc containing the Lamb of God reclining on the jewelled Throne surmounted by a cross

with, below, the Book of the Seven Seals.

On either side are the Seven

Candlesticks, and beyond, pairs of angels with dark wings, clad in white tunics. The heads, which are of great beauty, stand out against blue nimbi. Two of the symbols of the Evangelists remain, the angel and

the eagle; the bull and the lion have disappeared.

Lower down, at the

two extremities, an arm holding a crown may be distinguished—all that remains of two groups of the Twenty-Four Elders which originally occupied the spandrels of the arch. This whole apse composition is the prototype of many of the later examples, especially those of the ninth century, and at Santa Prassede there is a rather inferior repetition of

this triumphal arch motif which has been preserved. Although this work shows undeniable Eastern influence, it has an individuality and a forcefulness which sets it apart from the general cur-

82

rent.

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

The colossal size and almost brutal energy of the figures have led

some critics to consider them the result of a Northern influence brought in by the Goths who at this time were dominant in Italy and were even

holding Rome;* but it should be remembered that a good deal, at least, of this impression of a certain barbaric coarseness is due to the fact that the mosaic is always seen at too close a range on account of the raising

of the pavement. Fifty years later than SS. Cosma e Damiano, Pope Pelagius II, 587-590, rebuilt the church of San Lorenzo-fuori-le-mura ** and provided the triumphal arch with a mosaic (37). Owing to the addition of the actual nave and the reorientation of the church under Honorius III, this mosaic now faces the choir. Above, there is a Latin inscription which was remade in 1860 according to old documents, and which records the work done by Pelagius.

The composition of the triumphal arch is an example of the so-called Byzantine manner carried out in a rather hard and lifeless way. It is, technically, very inferior to the nearly contemporary mosaics of Ravenna or SS. Cosma e Damiano, a fact which may be partly explained by the unfortunate condition of Rome at this period as a result of the Lombard invasions. The figures stand out on a gold background. In the center is Christ, seated on a blue globe, as in San Vitale at Ravenna. This emaciated and ascetic figure with black hair and beard, is clad in violet garments and blesses with the right hand in the Latin manner. The left

hand holds a long cross. At the left and the right are St. Peter and St. Paul clad in the white tunic and the pallium. St. Peter holds a cross and St. Paul, a scroll. Beyond St. Peter is St. Lawrence, dressed in the dalmatic of a deacon, and bearing a cross and an open book with the inscription: DIS PER SIT DEDIT PAV PERI BVS, “He has distributed his wealth with lib-

erality among the poor," a quotation from the CXI psalm which was applied to him in the breviary on account of his having given the wealth of the church to the poor before his persecutors could seize it. St. Law-

ROMAN

MOSAICS

FROM FOURTH

TO SEVENTH

CENTURIES

83

rence has his hand on the shoulder of Pope Pelagius who holds a model of the church. The head of Pelagius, unlike the others, has no nimbus. It seems to have been little restored, and may almost be considered a por-

trait. On the other side, next to St. Paul, is the martyr, St. Stephen, usually associated with St. Lawrence, shown as a young man wearing the dalmatic of a deacon as well as the mantle. He holds the Gospel open at the words:

follow you."

A DE SIT A NI MA

ME

A, “My soul is held to

Beyond, is the figure of St. Hypolitus holding a martyr's

crown. He is represented here because he was one of the soldiers ordered to guard St. Lawrence and was converted and baptized by him. Below these figures are the towns of Bethlehem and Jerusalem.

An inscription of gold letters on a blue ground runs around the arch. It is dedicated to St. Lawrence and reads: MARTYRUM FLAMMIS OLIM LEVVITA SUBISTI IURE TUIS TEMPLIS LUX BENERANDA REDIT “You underwent martyrdom by the flames, and it is just, O Levite, that an honorable splendor be given to your temple."

The composition has a border similar to the one in Santa Sabina and in the mausoleum of Galla Placidia at Ravenna, with the addition

of the chain of rectangles and ovals which is found in so many of the mosaics.

An engraving of Ciampini*" shows that in his time the mosaic was in bad condition, the towns of Bethlehem and Jerusalem having almost

entirely disappeared, and it has undergone numerous restorations since his day.

This may account for some of the stiffness and poor color.

We have now reviewed all of the existing Roman mosaics to the end of the sixth century. That there were a great many more there is ample proof from the references to them in old documents, in the Liber

Pontificalis, and even from drawings of the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries, for a number

of them were not destroyed

swept away by the passion for the Baroque.“

until they were

84

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Old St. Peter's! was covered with mosaics; the nave, the apse, and the facade. The nave had a series of Old Testament scenes done under Pope Liberius, 352-366, and restored under Formosus, 891-896. From

Grimaldi's drawings they would seem to have been similar to those of Santa Maria Maggiore. The apse which is known by a seventeenthcentury drawing, showed Christ enthroned between St. Peter and St. Paul. Below Christ were stags drinking from the Four Rivers of Paradise, and palm-trees enframed the upper zone. At the base was the usual composition of the Lamb on the Mount with the Twelve Sheep issuing from Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The mosaic was restored in the seventh century and again by Innocent III, 1198-1216, who had himself represented by the side of the central Lamb. The head of the figure is still preserved. The facade was first embellished by Leo I, 440-461, and the subjects included the Lamb of God and the Twenty-Four Elders. The nave of the Lateran had an early and the New Testaments," dating perhaps century. The subjects of these are used in reliefs of the seventeenth century. The apses

series of scenes of the Old from the fourth or the fifth the present Baroque stucco of Sant'Agata dei Goti, 455-

461, and Sant'Andrea Catabarbara ™, 471-483, contained mosaics, which are known only by late and inferior drawings. The earliest Roman mosaics; Santa Costanza, Santa Pudenziana and Santa Maria Maggiore, show an art still largely dominated by the spirit of the antique, even though many details may point to an East Christian influence, and the little oratory of Pope Hilarius reverts to the purest traditions of catacomb art. But the arch of Galla Placidia at St. Paul's is a complete break with this tradition, and by the sixth century, the so-called Syro-Palestinian or Eastern style which develops

into the Byzantine, is well established in SS. Cosma e Damiano and San Lorenzo.

THE

MOSAICS

OF

RAVENNA

Tur

Mosarcs or RAVENNA

In the sth and 6th centuries Ravenna the most important city in Italy and in the development of mosaics.— Three great personalities, Galla Placidia, Theodoric and Justinian.—The Mausoleum of Galla Placidia.—The Baptistery of the Orthodox.—Sant'Apollinare Nuovo.—San Vitale.—The Archiepiscopal Palace.—Sant’

Apollinare

in

Classe —The

Arian

Baptistery.—San

Michele

in

Affrisco.—Lost mosaics.—The salient points of the style and their. probable origin.—The influence of the style elsewhere.

V.

THE

MOSAICS

OF

RAVENNA*

The art of Ravenna is associated with three great personalities; Galla Placidia, d. 450, Theodoric, 493-526; and Justinian, 526-561. Dur-

ing the fifth and the sixth centuries the city was virtually the capital of Italy, and a center for the extraordinarily varied artistic impulses of the Christian world. The monuments which have been preserved give us,

perhaps, the most complete and vivid impression we have of the art of this period, and the mosaics constitute their chief glory. The so-called Mausoleum and the Baptistery of the Orthodox belong to the time of Galla Placidia; to Theodoric, most of the work in Sant'Apollinare Nuovo and the Arian Baptistery; to Justinian, Sant’Apollinare in Classe, San Vitale, and the Archiepiscopal Palace. The later work in Sant'Apollinare in Classe and the apse of San Michele

in Affricisco are of the more decadent period of the Exarchate. The little building which goes by the name of the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia (38) was, in reality, probably a chapel or an oratory erected in honor of SS. Nazarius and Celsus, attached to the church of

that name. It may be dated towards the middle of the fifth century. It is of Greek cross plan with equal arms, constructed of brick, with a small cupola curiously formed of hollow amphorz, one embedded in the other.

Originally, the interior walls were covered by an incrustation of precious marbles, and above this, the barrel vaults of the arms of the cross with

the lunettes at the ends, the drum and the cupola are still entirely covered with their embellishment of mosaic (39). The mosaics of the vaults are all on a blue ground.

In the center

of the cupola is a Latin cross of gold standing out on a field of gold stars, and at the four angles are the winged symbols of the Evangelists coming out of little clouds.

On the four sides of the drum, on the same blue

88

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

ground, are eight Apostles, two by two, separated by the four windows. Above each group there is a shell with festoons of pearls, and between the figures, in each case, there are two doves drinking from a cantharus. The Apostles are clad in white tunics and mantles, and St. Peter and St. Paul are in profile, an unusual feature, as the heads in the early mosaics are usually shown full face or three-quarters. St. Peter carries the key for almost the first time in monumental art. The vaults of the transepts have, as a central motif, the monogram

of Christ with the Alpha and the Omega in the midst of scrolls, and at either side of these monograms are little figures which may represent the four Apostles, who did not find a place on the drum. At the end of the vaults, there is a formal scheme of acanthus scrolls with two harts

drinking from a spring, illustrating Psalm XLII (40). Opposite the entrance, at the end of the north arm of the chapel, there is a scene of quite different character from the rest of the work (41). Below the window, in the center, is a flaming gridiron. At the left, in an open cupboard, are the four books of the Gospels, and, at the right, a bearded figure in a white mantle, with a nimbus, and carrying a cross and a book, rushes violently towards the center. This figure is

usually considered to represent St. Lawrence on account of the presence, of the instrument of his martyrdom. In addition, St. Lawrence, as a deacon, would have charge of the Gospels and would carry a cross. This is one of the earliest examples of that realistic, historical style which’ was transforming Christian art. On the opposite wall is the famous mosaic of the Good Shepherd (42). Christ is shown seated against a background of rocks and shrubs, surrounded by six sheep. This majestic, beardless figure, clad in purple, with golden nimbus, and holding a long cross, is the early symbolic type of the third and the fourth centuries, suggesting the classical Apolloj In fact, the symbolism of the whole scene goes back to the traditions of Early Christian art, but the richness of Christ's garments and the sche+ matic treatment of the landscape show a strong Eastern influence.

THE

MOSAICS

OF

RAVENNA

89

Many may agree with Diehl that the interior of this little chapel is the most exquisite thing which early Christian art has left us. It is undoubtedly, the most complete and the most perfectly preserved mosaic decoration of a small building that exists. Technically, it is ' of the very highest quality, both in the skillful use of color, and in the manner in which the design is adapted to the space. The effect is well described by John Addington Symonds who speaks of the dim light from the narrow windows which “serves to harmonize the brilliant hues and make a gorgeous gloom.” . The style shows a good deal of classical feeling in the naturalism of the figures, the movement, and the treatment of light and shade, but

this does not necessarily mean that it shows a native as some critics would have us believe. - These so-called teristics were common to most of the art of the Near part of the general Hellenistic tradition. . Moreover,

Italian influence classical charac East and were i here, there is

decided Eastern influence in the use of brilliant color, in the jewelled

cross of the cupola, iin the schematic treatment of the landscape iin the Good Shepherd mosaic, and in the conventional character of much of

the detail. The cupola of the Baptistery of the Orthodox, * (43) or, more officially, San Giovanni in Fonte, is considered to have been decorated under Archbishop Neon, 449-452, and it is, therefore, nearly contemp-

orary with the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia. The central medallion of the dome represents the Baptism of Christ

(44).

The nude figure of Our Lord stands in the water up to the waist.

At the left, John the Baptist, holding a long jewelled cross, pours water

on His head, river Jordan, man. A line rounding the

while the Dove descends from above, and at the right, “JORDANN,” is personified in pagan fashion as an may be easily distinguished on the gold background head and the neck of Christ and the head and the

the old surleft

arm of John the Baptist. This marks the restoration undertakenn by Kibel between 1860 and 1880.

90

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Two concentric zones complete the decorations of the cupola; the first showing the Twelve Apostles, and the second, altars and thrones in an architectural setting. The Apostles form a double procession headed by St. Peter and St. Paul and their names are indicated by inscriptions. They are dressed in tunics and pallia, a gold tunic and a white pallium alternating with a white tunic and a gold pallium, thus giving an interesting rhythm to the design. Above their heads, are festoons of drapery, and between each figure, there is a conventionalized acanthus plant as

a symbol of Paradise. The lower, narrower zone is divided into eight equal compartments

of colonnades

with

niches, the niches occupied

alternately by

four

thrones and four altars. The thrones are embellished with jewels and have cushions surmounted by a cross, and at either side are chancelscreens with flowers behind. The altars are each flanked by two chairs, and on each altar, there is a book of the Gospel with an inscription. There has been much discussion over the symbolism of this scheme. The empty throne would seem to be the Etimasia, or the preparation of the throne for the Last Judgment, as on the triumphal arch of Santa Maria Maggiore, but this explanation does not fit the four thrones. The empty chairs have been supposed to represent a council. Perhaps the

most plausible theory is that the whole scheme symbolizes the Church with its principal centers. The eight angles of the drum by volutes of foliage (45). The stored by Kibel. Lower down, on are mutilated inscriptions relating

contain figures of Prophets enframed foliage has been almost entirely rethe arches of the three lower apses, to the rite of baptism.

In style, these mosaics show the same characteristics found in the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, a little less fine in conception and in the sense of color. The Apostles are treated realistically, much in the late Roman manner, but the tendency to isolate the figures and, at the same time, give them a uniform movement or rhythm, is typically Eastern.

THE

MOSAICS

OF

RAVENNA

91

There is the same combination of elements from the Hellenistic Orient here that there is in the Mausoleum

of Galla Placidia.

The basilica now known as Sant'Apollinare Nuovo"

was erected

by Theodoric and dedicated to the Saviour under the Arian cult. When it was returned to the Orthodox Church by Bishop Agnellus, 556-569, it received the name of San Martino in Cielo d'Oro, because of its mosaics. Later, probably in the tenth century, it was rededicated and received its present name on account of the translation of the relics of the saint from Sant'Apollinare in Classe.

This basilica has one of the most complete ensembles of mosaics in existence (46-56). Those of the apse have disappeared, but both walls of the nave have retained their decoration complete from the arcades to the ceiling. These mosaics are divided into three zones. The upper zone, above the windows, consists of twenty-six compositions, thirteen on each side, from the life of Christ. Each of these scenes is separated from the other by a shell surmouhted by a cross between two doves. The intermediate zone contains thirty-two figures, sixteen on each side, representing Prophets and authors of the Bible in all probability, although there is no direct evidence for this. These figures occupy the spaces between the windows. The lower zone consists of two processions; at the left, twenty-two virgin saints, preceded by the three Magi (46), leave the town of Classis and approach the Virgin Mary; at the right, twenty-six martyrs, male saints, leave Ravenna and approach Christ (47). The scenes of the life of Christ, contrary to the processions lower down, begin at the altar and end at the entrance. On the left, are the Miracles and Parables, and on the right, are the scenes from the Passion. Their order is probably in accordance with the reading of the Gospels, as it took place in the old liturgy of Ravenna from the beginning of Lent to Easter Sunday. These episodes are presented with a concentration and clarity, and with a sense of revealing gesture and dramatic con-

92

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

ception of the event which we will not find again in Western Art until the frescoes of Giotto. Beginning with the miracles, we have, in order: The Miracle of Cana; the Multiplication of Loaves (50); the Vocation of Peter and Andrew; the Curing of the Two Blind Men; the Curing of the Woman with Dropsy; the Woman of Samaria; the Resurrection of Lazarus; the Pharisee and the Publican; the Widow's Mite; the Sheep and the Goats

(51); the Curing of a Paralytic; the Curing of the One Possessed; the Curing of the Paralytic of Bethesda. In all these scenes, Christ is shown as young and beardless, while

in the scenes of the Passion He is represented as much older and bearded, but there is no reason to separate the two series on this account, as they

seem to be similar in style.

In both, Christ wears violet robes and has

a cruciferous nimbus, and other details show a similar connection between the two. The Miracle of Cana has been three-quarters restored

but the upper part of the body of Christ is original.

Others of the series

show minor restorations, but are, on the whole, in good condition. The subjects are well and simply treated with never more than four or five figures in a scene. They bear certain resemblances to some of the earl miniatures, for the most part of Eastern origin, and they are among the

Very earliest representations we have of New Testament subjects. The scenes from the Passion are as follows: The Last Supper (52); Christ on the Mount of Olives; the Betrayal (53); Christ Led

to Judgment;

Christ before

Caiphus;

Christ's

Prediction

to Peter;

Denial of Peter; Repentance of Judas; Christ before Pilate; Christ Led to Calvary; the Holy Women at the Tomb; the Disciples of Emmaus; Christ Appearing to the Apostles. These subjects are treated with a dramatic intensity which we do not find in the more symbolic scenes of the Miracles. Throughout, there is a combination of Eastern and Hellenistic elements which relates the

style to that of the

Rossano

Gospels and other early miniatures and

THE

MOSAICS

OF

points to an East- Christian an heritage..

the round table is of Asiatic origin.

RAVENNA

93

In the Last Supper, the type of

In Christ Before Pilate, or Christ :

Led to Calvary, and in other scenes, we have the best of the realistic,

historical style of the sixth century,

subjects which

have,

perhaps,

never been more successfully treated in later art. The Prophets between the windows (48, 49) the mosaics above and are probably of the time of tall, majestic figures, well diversified in gesture, scrolls. Over the heads of the windows are pairs

are related in style to Theodoric. They are and “carry books or of birds.

On the twelfth of February, 1915, an Austrian bomb fell on the left angle of the facade of the basilica, detaching the first three Prophets, two of the shells above, and the scene of the Paralytic. These mosaics have now been replaced without any serious changes.

The procession of virgin saints issues from the port of Classis (46); Kibel’s restoration of the upper portion of the architecture of the town is easily distinguished by its hard regularity. Each saint is provided with a nimbus and wears a rich dalmatic of gold and a white tunic. A fringed veil is carried on the left shoulder and is draped over the left arm, and in the left hand is borne a martyr’s crown. The figures are separated by palms with flowering plants at the base. There seems to be an almost rigid monotony in the scheme, but the veils alternate in height, the palms are alternately light green and dark green, and the flowers white and red, giving rhythm to the design. St. Agnes, the only saint who is distinguished by an attribute, has the lamb ‘at her feet. The richness of the coloring, and the frankness of the repetition . without dead monotony, make this procession one of the most impressive in art. | At the head are the three Magi bearing gifts and the Virgin and

Child seated on a jewelled throne with two angels on either side (54). The entire upper portion of the figures of the Magi is a restoration, but the group of the Virgin and the angels does not appear to have

94

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

been changed in any essential part. This symmetrical and stylized composition of the Virgin and Child is one of the so-called Byzantine formule which were common in Eastern art from the sixth century on. On the other wall is depicted the palace of Theodoric, with a panorama of Ravenna beyond. The twenty-five martyrs (47) are headed by St. Martin, the patron saint of the basilica of Agnellus, who, alone, is clad in a purple mantle. The rest wear white tunics and mantles and carry their martyrs! crowns. It is interesting to note that all the male saints represented are Roman, corresponding with the female saints where all are Roman with the exception of two.

The figure of Christ, as a pendant to the Virgin on the other wall, is seated on a jewelled throne, surrounded by four angels (55). The whole right side of the figure, as well as the two angels on the right,

have been badly remade on too large a scale.

This is due to the fact

that during the seventeenth century an organ was erected here which was removed early in the following century when the restoration took place. The figures of the Virgin and of Christ with the surrounding angels seem to be of the same style as the mosaics of the two upper zones, and it is quite probable that they, too, date from the time of Theodoric. The space occupied by the processions of saints may have contained subjects which were distasteful to the Byzantine rulers, so that they were removed to make way for the present mosaics. These mosaics as a whole show a new iconographical conception, as here the narrative subjects are high and are relegated to second place, while they occupy the most prominent position at Santa Maria Maggiore. The Oriental tendency towards abstraction and stylization, already apparent in the mosaics of Theodoric's time, is fully developed in the processions of the saints, where the forms are flatter and show very little modelling. The female saints are, on the whole, more subtly varied and modelled than the male.

THE MOSAICS OF RAVENNA

95

Formerly there were portraits of both Justinian and the Archbishop Agnellus at the entrance to the basilica. These were already in a ruinous condition in the sixteenth century, and now all that

remains is the much

restored bust of Justinian, IVSTINIAN

(56).

The emperor's diadem, the nimbus, and the buckle holding the mantle are elaborately adorned with mother-of-pearl, like the mosaics in the choir of San Vitale.

The choir of San Vitale^"5* (57-65), the only portion of the church which is adorned with mosaics, shows the early Byzantine style in its full splendor with a brilliant and carefully thought-out scheme. __ In the apse, the beardless figure of Christ with cruciferous is seated on a blue globe (57). With His right hand, He crown to San Vitale, and in His left hand He holds the Book Seven Seals. On either side, are two angels, clad in white,

long batons.

nimbus, offers a of the holding

On the left, is San Vitale in a costume of rich Byzantine

brocade, and on the right, the bishop, Ecclesius (ECLESIVS EPIS), offers a model of the church. The presence of the bishop without a nimbus would date this mosaic, in all probability, between the years 521 and 534.

On the apsidal arch, two flying angels hold a disk of blue with the letter “A” in the center, from which radiate eight white and red rays. At the sides, are Bethlehem and Jerusalem, designated by inscriptions, and palm trees. The vault of the choir (58) has for a central motif a medallion, surrounded by a wreath of foliage and fruit, which contains the Divine Lamb on a background of stars. Four winged angels support this medallion. The groins of the vault have pyramidal garlands of foliage and fruit descending to the corners where there are peacocks with spreading tails, standing on globes. The field between the garlands is filled with blue and red volutes, in the midst of which may be distinguished various birds and other animals; peacocks, partridges,

96

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

herons, doves, gazelles, antelope and so on. The head of the Lamb always seems to face the spectator from any angle, a fact which impressed an early historian of Ravenna, Girolamo Rossi, in the sixteenth century.

A part of the vault fell in the eighteenth century and was replaced by a painted imitation and it has undergone a number of restorations

since that time. Even in quite recent years it has been again repaired and cleaned. But in spite of all these changes it remains one of the most beautiful of mosaics, superb in composition and glorious in color. The subjects on the walls symbolize the evangelical doctrine and the mystery of the altar. At either side of the trifora are represented the Four Evangelists; St. John and St. Luke on the left and St. Mark

and St. Matthew

on the right (59).

These

figures are seated in a

rocky landscape and above each one is his respective symbol. They have a certain hardness and awkwardness which is perhaps due to restoration. The arches of the trifora are decorated with vine scrolls and vases with doves. The lower wall on the right shows the sacrifices of Abel and chisedec interpreted as a symbol of the eucharistic sacrifice (60). chisedec offers the loaf of bread and Abel, the lamb. Above the two flying angels hold a medallion with a jewelled cross, and at side are Moses and the Prophet Isaiah, the former guarding the of Jethro. On the opposite wall is the sacrifice of Abraham. represented (61); at the left we see him serving the at the right, he is about to sacrifice Isaac. Above similar to the one on the opposite wall. At the left is miah and at the right Moses is shown on the Mount below.

MelMelarch, either flocks

Abraham is twice three angels, and we have a scene the Prophet Jerewith the Hebrews

In the soffit of the arch of the choir (62) there are fifteen medallions in a beautiful enframement

of interlaced

dolphins

and

other

motifs.

THE MOSAICS OF RAVENNA The

medallions contain the busts of Christ

(restored),

97 the Twelve

Apostles, and the two sons of San Vitale, Gervasius and Protasius.

On the nineteenth of April in 547 Maximian solemnly consecrated the church in the presence of Justinian and Theodora. Two famous mosaics in the choir (63-65) commemorate this event and give a more vivid picture of the pomp and the splendor of the Byzantine court than anything else which has come down to us. The panel on the left shows

the emperor and his suite with the bishop, Maximian, who is accompanied by two deacons (63). The realistic portrait heads form a marked contrast with the rigid attitudes of the bodies in their stiff garments,

but this bold, schematic treatment, thoroughly Orientalin conception, creates a profound impression of dignity. The second panel, showing Theodora and her suite, is even more striking (64). The gorgeous head-dress of the empress gleams with gold and mother-of-pearl (65) and on the hem of her embroidered robe the sumptuous Byzantine brocades of the period. Here, there is ; less stiffness in the attitudes than in the preceding mosaic. At the left is

the cantharus,or fountain, in which the faithful made their ablutions according to the early ritual before entering the church. These two panels are doubly precious on account of the almost complete destruction of secular mosaics. They are the only early examples we have which are not of a purely religious character, and perhaps they give a faint suggestion of the vanished glories of the Byzantine palaces. The chapel of San Pietro Chrysologo in the Archbishop's Palace is now known to have been founded by Pietro II whose monogram occurs on one of the arches. . The bishop died in 519 and the mosaics probably date from the first half of the sixth century, and their style, which is similar t to thoseof San Vitale, would bear this out. In both there is

the same broad indication with firm, dark outlines combined with many gradations.

98

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

In the vault (66-68), four angels, recalling those of San Vitale, support a medallion with the monogram of Christ, and between them, are the symbols of the Evangelists holding jewelled books. The bull is not provided with a nimbus, but this was doubtless left out in one of the restorations. The lion's head and the angel on the right have also been badly restored. The soffits of the arches which support this vault contain a series

of busts in medallions.

In the center of two of them the beardless Christ

is represented and the other two have the sacred monogram.. The remaining medallions show the Twelve Apostles, six male saints and six female saints (69). These are very similar in style to those of the arch

of San Vitale. On the wall of the neighboring presbytery there is a figure of the Militant Christ (70). He is represented as a beardless young man with cruciferous nimbus, bearing a jewelled cross on His shoulder, and holding an open book with the inscription: EGO SUM VIA VERI TAS ET VITA, “I am the Way, the Truth, and Life." The lower part of the figure was at one time badly restored with draperies. It is now generally considered that the Christ was originally represented as a.soldier. with. ure in the Baptistery of the Orthodox.

Accordingly, it has been recently

thus restored temporarily in paint. Saint'Apollinare in Classe” is nearly contemporary with San Vitale. 'The mosaics, which are confinedto the apse and the arch (71) are, however, probably later than San Vitale, although the work in the apse itself is almost certainly of the sixth century. These mosaics have often been spoken of as decadent, but it does not seem fair to apply this term to the central composition. The surrounding panels are, of course, later and somewhat inferior in style. On the whole, this is one of the most satisfying examples of apse decoration in existence as it is complete and i homogeneous with no disturbing elements of later periods.

THE MOSAICS OF RAVENNA

99

In the apse itself wee have a symbolic representation of. the Trans Tranenot representediin person but by a great jewelled cross in a medallion__ with a background of stars. In the very center of the cross there is a small bust of the bearded Christ in a medallion. To the right and the left of this central theme, Moses and Elias emerge from clouds of brilliant blue and red, and above, is the Hand of God. Below is a pasture

with trees and rocks.

The three sheep, two on the right and one on the

left, complete the scene of the Transfiguration as they represent the three Apostles chosen by Our Lord to.be witnesses. of His glorification;

Peter, James and John.

At the base of the composition are twelve sheep,

the traditional way of representing the Apostles; but in the center where we should expect the Divine Lamb, we have Sant'Apollinare shown as

an orant.

This has led some authorities to think that this figure is a

later interpolation, but if so, it was done before the twelfth century, as

it is mentioned in a document of that time. On the face of the arch, there is an upper band with the medallion of Christ blessing and the symbols of the Evangelists; below, the Twelve Sheep issuing from Bethlehem and Jerusalem, and at the base, the sacred palms. Still lower, on the right, is the Archangel Gabriel, and on

the left, the Archangel Michael.

These impressive figures are repre- —

sented in full Byzantine regalia, and technically they are among the best of the mosaics here, iin contrast to the badly restored busts of St. Matthew and St. Luke which fill the remaining space below. The two re-

maining Evangelists, if they were once represented, have now disap-. peared.” The remaining work occupies the lower band of the apse itself. In the center, between the windows, are the figures of four archbishops of

Ravenna;

ECLESIVS

SCS;

SEVERVS

SCS;

VRSVS

(72);

VRSI-

CINVS, according to the inscriptions. These panels are almost identical except for the more or less portrait heads and the treatment of the pilasters at the sides. The shells above, the draped curtains with the

100

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

crowns suspended over the heads of the figures are in the best sixth century tradition. It is quite possible that the head of Ursicinus, d.536, which seems more individualized than the others, is a contemporary

portrait. Two larger compositions on either side of these figures complete the

series. That on the left (73), of historical character, represents the Archbishop Reparatus receiving the privileges of the Church of Ravenna; the one on the right shows the mystical subjects of the sacrifices

of Abel, Abraham and Melchisedec (74).

It will be noticed that the

backgrounds of both these scenes are similar in style to those of the four archbishops and it is probable that these mosaics once commemorated events relative to the consecration of the basilica. However that may be, in the seventh century they were refashioned to represent the subjects we see today.

In the first, may be distinguished the archbishop,

Reparatus and the emperor, Constantine IV, with his sons, Heraclius | and Tiberius. The arrangement is very similar to the mosaic of Justinian in San Vitale, but feebler, and a recent authority has discovered that the heads seem to have been cut out and replaced, so that we may suppose that the earlier scene was refashioned by Reparatus to suit his own ends. This would help to explain various anomalies, such as the scroll of privileges which seems to float in mid air. It must be said, further, that frequent and unfortunate restorations from the seventeenth century on have sadly defaced it and do not permit us to judge it fairly.

The second mosaic, representing the sacrifices is obviously imitated from San Vitale but the execution is very inferior. has been much restored.

The lower portion

On the whole there is no great divergence in style between the mosaics of the arch and the apse. The flowers in the panels of the two Archangels are similar to those surrounding Sant'Apollinare, and the twelve lambs and the Archangels, the four archbishops and the figure of the saint seem related to one another. We may conclude that the whole

.

THE

MOSAICS

OF

RAVENNA

IOI

scheme was started in the first half of the sixth century and that about a century later it was completed and modified in an inferior style. The splendid mosaics of the Baptistery of the Orthodox evidently inspired the similar decoration of the Árian Baptistery (7 5), a circular structure which originally formed part of the Romanbaths, and was

consecrated to the Catholic cult in 558. Here, in the Baptism, the figures are transposed, John the Baptist being on the right instead of the left. The personification of the Jordan isa typically classical figure with claws

on his head in the manner of ancient marine deities.

The Christ, who is

beardless here, seems to have been less retouched than the Christ of the Baptistery of the Orthodox.

Above, is the Dove, with the two eyes

naively placed in the top of its head.

The pose of the Baptist is evi-

dently copied from the earlier composition, but the artist has omitted to place the rock under the raised foot. The procession of Apostles is a simplified and stiffer version of the earlier series. The draperies, | the very conventionalized palms, and the

rather crudely designed throne show few traces of classical influence and point to a later date. Like so many of the Ravenna mosaics, this, too, has suffered from

restorations,” but it must always have been afeebler copy.of the Bap-. tistery.of the-Orthodox; even the color is more broken up, varied, and less fine. It is usually dated about the middle of the sixth century, and was probably executed soon after the reconsecration of the building in 558. Even if the mosaics which we have examined so far have suffered from the vicissitudes of time and at the hands of the restorers, they are,

at least, i situ and have retained, after all, a good deal of their former glory. The same cannot be said of the unfortunate apse of San Michele in Affricisco or, "ad Frigiselo" ®.(76) which was bought by Frederick William IV of Prussia. Detached from the walls in 1844, it reposed for a while iin Venice: Then, the cubes were "broken up and sent in cases

102

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

to Berlin where they were stored for half a century—until 1904, to exact— when the apse was finally reconstructed in the Kaiser Friedrich

Museum.

Suffice it to say that the mosaic retains no trace of the orig-|

inal style and bears all the ear-marks of nineteenth century archzology. It is only the composition that can interest us here. In the center is Christ with a cruciferous nimbus, holding the Book and a jewelled cross. At His right hand is the Archangel Michael, and at His left, the Archangel Gabriel, and the whole is enframed by a border

of doves in profile.

On the arch above is a bearded figure of Christ

seated on a throne and holding the Book, surrounded by angels, and below, are the medical saints, Cosmas and Damianus. According to drawings made before the mosaic was removed, the present reconstruction follows the original composition faithfully enough. In all probability it dates from the sixth century. The mosaics of Ravenna show us today the greatest extant of the sixth century. Nowhere else do we get such a vivid or picture of the work of this period. But even here we have remains of what once existed. In the early writers, especially

there are many allusions to destroyed mosaics."

The

examples extended only the Agnellus,

Cathedral, or

Basilica of Ursus, was covered with them, but we do not even know their subjects. Santa Maria Maggiore, among others, had a celebrated

image of the Mother of God.

The marbles and mosaics of the palace

of Theodoric were carried away by Charlemagne to adorn the imperial residence at Aix-la-Chapelle and no traces remain. In the apse of the church of Sant'Agata, was a figure of Christ seated on a throne between two angels, and holding a scroll with the Seven Seals. This was destroyed by an earthquake in 1688 but has been reproduced by Ciam-

pini ?.

It probably dated from the sixth century.

There has been much discussion about the origin of the style of Ravenna.

A number of authorities, perhaps inspired by a kind of pa-

THE

MOSAICS

OF

RAVENNA

103

triotism, see in it a native product following the antique Roman tradi-

tion with little or no outside influence.

Others feel that the entire .

inspiration comes from the Near East and that what it owes to Rome is negligible. Without going into this too deeply, it would seem that an

impartial critic would have to take a less dogmatic attitude until we are sure of the actual origin of many characteristics and motifs which are from Syria, Palestine, Egypt or r elsewhere. The present extent of our knowledge makes many such statements only hypotheses. The rich back-

grounds of blue or.gold are apparently Eastern, not Roman, and so are, as well, the ceremonial processions, the costumes, and the realistic portraiture. It has also been pointed out that the curious effect some of the figures have of appearing to walk upon their toes, as in the Baptistery

of the Orthodox, is an Eastern characteristic. There are, however, certain typically Western, or Roman traits, such as the frequent representation of the symbols of the Evangelists, although these are by no means unknown in the East. Itis ; also a remarkable fact that the inscriptions, even in mosaics which are purely Byzantine in character, are always in Latin; but this can perhaps be explained

on political grounds, and does not necessarily have much to do with the actual style of the work.

Certainly,

the intimate

relations between

Ravenna and the Eastern Empire, from the time of Galla Placidia on, would tend to bring influences from that direction. Ravenna, like Venice at a later day, faced the East with her back to Italy. The earlier work of Galla Placidia and Theodoric does show affinities with the late Roman style, as we have seen, but by the time that the Byzantines have estab-

lished themselves at Ravenna much of the antique tradition dies out, In general, the mosaics show the transition from antique naturalism and

impressionism to the more formal medizval abstraction and conventionalism which practically all the art of the period was undergoing.

104

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Although these works have their own local characteristics which differentiate them from others of the period, we feel that Ravenna itself was not a sufficiently great center to have actually originated the style. Such a style, with its combination of so many early and long-developing traditions, could have only been evolved in one or a combination of tbe converging points of the Near East. At the end of the next chapter we

will consider the possibility of a radiating center from Antioch * being _ responsible for a large part of these Oriental elements. The bold hypothesis brought forward by Dütschke that these mosaics were executed by artists from Northern Africa has little foundation if we compare

them with the pavements and the few tomb mosaics from those provinces. Certain general resemblances between them point, rather, to a common

ancestry.

:

un

The school of Ravenna undoubtedly exerted its influence elsewhere. Local workmen were probably trained with the Byzantine or other East-

ern artists and spread themselves in all directions.

It is a question

whether the mosaics of San Giovanni in Fonte at Naples or thoseof San Prisco near Capua were influenced from here. It is, perhaps, better to

consider them the result of a similar East Christian influence which came _ by way of the sea. The same may also be said of the Roman mosaics of SS. Cosma e Damiano, nearly contemporary with San Vitale, and of

Sanin Lorenzo-fuori-le-mura.

The splendid mosaics of Parenzo, across

the Adriatic, have, as we shall see, much in common with those of Ravenna and belong to the same school. If they do not show a direct inspiration from the latter, they are, in any case, a result of the same tradition.

OTHER

EARLY SEVENTH

MOSAICS

TO

CENTURY

THE

Orner

EAgLY

Mosaics

TO THE SEVENTH

CENTURY

Salonika the second city of the Byzantine Empire and its mosaics: St. George, St. Demetrius, the Eski-Djouma, and the recently discovered mosaic in St. David.—Constantinople: the problem of St. Sophia, the mosaics of the Narthex.—The Church of the Holy Apostles.—Mount Sinai: the Monastery of St. Catherine.—Parenzo. —Pola: Santa Maria del Canneto.—Milan: San Lorenzo and the Chapel of St. Victor in Sant'Ambrogio.—Albenga: the Baptistery. —Casaranello.—Naples: San Giovanni in Fonte —The lost mosaics of Nola.—Capua: San Prisco.—North Africa and Spain. —Summary of the Early Christian style in general.—Antioch as & radiating center?

VI.

OTHER

EARLY MOSAICS TO SEVENTH CENTURY

THE

In this chapter we shall survey a wide geographical area including the whole of the Near East, and Italy with the exception of Rome and Ravenna. The great flourishing communities in the Near East;

Syria with Antioch and the Holy Land, Asia Minor, and Byzantium itself, have very little left to show us, but we must remember that here, throughout this period, there were important centers of radiating

influence and that the style of these lost mosaics is, without doubt, reflected in the mosaics of Rome and Ravenna which we have already

described. Salonika,“ the second

city of the Eastern Empire

strategically

placed to receive all the varied artistic impulses of the Byzantine world,

still retains a number of splendid works which are among the best that have come down to us. The church of St. George is a late Roman domed edifice consecrated to Christianity early in the fifth century. Three of the eight interior niches still have a mosaic decoration of medallions with birds and bas-

Kets of fruit, rosaces adorned with swastikas, or birds and stars and fleurons on a silver ground, in the same tradition as the vaults of Santa Costanza (77). The cupola had much the same scheme as that of the Baptistery of the Orthodox at Ravenna. There was a central medallion with the figure of Our Lord, but only a fragment of the border, a garland of fruit and flowers, remains. The zone corresponding to the Apostles of Ravenna has also been destroyed, but a second zone, corresponding to the altars and thrones of the Baptistery, has been preserved and is

one of the finest decorative ensembles of the fifth century (78).

Here

there are eight compartments, seven of which are well preserved, with elaborate architectural backgrounds, against which stand pairs of saints

108

A HISTORY

in the attitude of orants."

The

OF MOSAICS

architecture

is in the more ornate

Pompeian or Alexandrian tradition and stands out on a gold ground, and the artist has shown a much greater interest in this setting than in the figures themselves, which are here relegated to a rather minor róle and

are small in scale. The compositions are typically late Hellenistic in conception, but the figures of the saints themselves are treated in the more abstract monumental manner with an attempt at portraiture which

we associate with East Christian influences. This use of fantastic architecture, treated in symmetrical parallel perspective, as an ornamental background has an interesting history."ἢ

Its origins probably lie in the painted scenery of the Hellenistic theatre. Such motifs were undoubtedly well known at Alexandria, at Antioch and in the various centers of Asia Minor. The so-called Fourth Style of wall painting at Pompeii is derived from it; a fine example is the Villa from Boscoreale in the Metropolitan Museum. In addition to the use of these motifs in St. George and the Baptistery of the Orthodox, and in the Great Mosque at Damascus, we find them in a number of the early illuminated manuscripts. The Council scenes in the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem, although of the twelíth century, go back to these earlier prototypes, and even in the fourteenth century we have

a certain revival of them in the mosaics of Kahrie Djami at Constantinople. By way of Pompeii they spring up again to influence the Adam style in England towards the end of the eighteenth century.

The beautiful mosaics of St. Demetrius (Hagia Paraskevi) “ which were uncovered in 1907, were, unfortunately, very seriously damaged by fire in 1917; but four panels, at least, on the pillars preceding the entrance to the transept, have escaped destruction. One of these represents St. Demetrius, clad in rich brocaded robes, standing with two

children

(79).

It is undoubtedly a votive mosaic referring to some

miraculous cure. Probably it is contemporary with the work in San Vitale at Ravenna, although it may be a little earlier, and it is remark-

OTHER

MOSAICS

TO THE

SEVENTH

CENTURY

109

able for its coloring and the skillful placing of the tesserz to produce varied reflections of light. On the same pillar there is a damaged panel representing the Virgin

and a saint standing against an architectural background.

According to

Ainaloff, it portrays the well-known Byzantine conception of the Virgin praying for the universe. It is quite different in style from the rest of the mosaics, and probably dates from the tenth or the eleventh century.

The figure of St. Sergius as an orant, clad in a white chlamys adorned with red circles, resembles the St. Demetrius in style and prob-

ably dates from the sixth century.

This is the third of the four panels

which have escaped destruction.

By far the finest of these panels (80) is the one which represents St. Demetrius standing between two bearded personages; usually referred to as the “Founders”, from the fact that one of them probably represents Leontius, prefect of Illyrium who founded the church, and the other, one of the early bishops. If this hypothesis is correct, the square nimbi would show that these men were living at the time the mosaic was executed and this would date it in the early fifth century. Although it may be possible to place it as early as this, it is so similar in style to the first panel of St. Demetrius that it would seem to be contemporary with it, and it perhaps shows a sixth century restoration of an earlier original. It seems much more probable, however, that the nimbi are not nimbi at all, but merely crenelations on top of the wall in

front of which the figures are standing.

If this is the case we do not

have to consider that these figures represent living personages and we are quite free to date the work at least as late as the sixth century. The mosaics above the arcades of the metrius as an orant, the Virgin and Child lions of Christ and various saints, all dating centuries, were destroyed in the fire. On Demetrius is in that historical, monumental

colonnades showing St. Dewith two angels, and medalfrom the sixth or the seventh the whole, the work in St. style which we find in Sant’-

IIO

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

Apollinare Nuovo or in the contemporary mosaics of Parenzo. An interesting feature of these mosaics is, that unlike those of Ravenna and elsewhere, they do not form a part of any thought-out scheme, but consist almost entirely of ex-voto panels, given by various donors and extending over a considerable period of time.

Of about this period,—the sixth century,—are the mosaics on the soffits of the arches of the Eski-Djouma (Hagia Paraskeoi). Here, there are formal Eastern designs of birds and flowers, vases of lotus or papyrus upon which stand birds, diapers of silver lattice with flowers on a blue ground in the openings, in fact, a whole gamut of Early Christian motifs. 'The cubes are of rich blues, greens, reds, and silver and gold, and as pure decoration these mosaics are among the best that have come down to us. The work in St. Sophia at Salonika all seems to be of a later period and we shall not take it up here, but a recently discovered mosaic in the apse of the church of St. David should be mentioned. "This represents the vision of Ezekiel (81); a beardless Christ seated on a rainbow within a circular glory and surrounded by the symbols of the Evangelists. Below, are the Prophets Ezekiel and Habakuk. It may date from the sixth century, but it does not compare in quality with those of St. Demetrius. Of the early mosaics in Constantinople very little remains. Some have been described by the early historians, but as here we are primarily interested in what actually exists, it is not worth our while to attempt to reconstruct them from purely documentary evidence. Those of St.

Sophia (“Divine Wisdom," Turkish, Aya Sofia), now almost entirely covered with white-wash or paint, are partially known by the drawings which Salzenburg and Fossati made in 1847, but these drawings do not give a clear idea of the style, so that there is a good deal of doubt as to what may date from the time of Justinian and what may be due to subsequent restoration. This was the extent of our knowledge of these mosaics until a couple of years ago. Now this great gap in the history of

OTHER

MOSAICS

TO THE

SEVENTH

CENTURY

III

the art is disappearing. The Turkish Government has permitted Thomas Whittemore on behalf of the Byzantine Institute to uncover and clean these mosaics and St. Sophia itself is being converted into a museum. Mr. Whittemore has already cleaned and restored the vaults of the narthex and revealed to us the splendid decorative mosaics of the time of

Justinian (82, 83), as well as the great lunettes over the Royal Entrance to the church and the South Portal which date from a later period. The narthex is divided into nine bays with groined vaults.

The ribs

of the vaults are covered with a geometric pattern and center on a roundel containing an eight-armed

cross.

Each

compartment

vaults has an elaborate floriated design on a gold ground

of the

(82).

On

the broad transverse arches which separate the nine vaults there are alternate squares and roundels filled with geometrical patterns. Each of the eight lunettes opposite the windows contains a cross (83) of the Golgotha type on a gold ground. In the soffit of each arch of the window openings on the west side of the narthex are two crosses and a star of silver on a blue ground, and in the jambs are vine scrolls. The geometric and floral designs are so similar to those on carvings inside the church that they must be contemporary, that is, of the time of the building of the church by Justinian. There are also similar designs in mosaic in the soffits of some of the arches of the interior. They

may be compared with patterns in Coptic textiles.

The prevalence of

the cross is perhaps due to Justinian's desire to reconcile the Monophysites to the official church. The mosaic which was originally in the central lunette over the Royal Door to the church, probably a cross as in the other lunettes, was removed to make way for the wonderful Christ Enthroned, but as this is a work of the late ninth or early tenth century we will consider it with the later Byzantine mosaics. The Church of the Holy Apostles, which was destroyed by Mohammed II, the Conqueror, to make way for his great mosque the Mehmet

A HISTORY

II2

OF MOSAICS

Fatih, had a famous series of episodes of the life of Christ which have been described by Constantine the Rhodian and Mesarites. It is interesting to note that these scenes were arranged in chronological order, as at Sant'Apollinare Nuovo, and not according to a fixed iconographical scheme following the order of the great festivals of the Church, such as became the general rule by the tenth century, and which was employed at Hosios Lucas in Phocis, at Daphni, at St. Mark's in Venice and else-

where.

In the scene of the Holy Women at the Tomb, the artist por-

trayed himself as one of the soldiers, quite in the spirit of the Italian Renaissance. 'These mosaics were evidently one of the great examples

of the more realistic Byzantine style. Sergius and Bacchus

(Kutchuk Aya

Theodora, once gleamed with mosaics.

The vaults of the church of SS. Sofia), erected by Justinian and

Procopius writes:

“By the sheen

of its marbles it was more resplendent than the sun, and everywhere it was filled profusely with gold." Some of these mosaics may still exist under the Turkish plaster. Choricius of Gaza describes mosaics of that city in the churches of St. Sergius and St. Stephen and there are other scattered references to them throughout the empire. However, one other early mosaic actually remains in Constantinople, that in the apse of the church of St. Irene.” This church was rebuilt by Justinian but all of the upper portion including the apse and the dome was restored by Leo the Isaurian about the middle of the eighth century and the mosaic probably dates from this time. The subject is typical of the Iconoclastic period—a large cross outlined in black upon a pale gold ground. There are even some silver tessere mixed

with the gold.

At the base of the semi-dome there are three steps set

upon a double band of green and a geometrical border with an inscription in Greek from Psalm LXV. On the face of the arch are other geometrical patterns with a broad wreath of foliage and another inscription in Greek. The upper part of the dome has been restored in paint and gilt

as well as the inscription at the base.

We may note here that the apses

OTHER

MOSAICS

TO THE

SEVENTH

CENTURY

113

of both the Church of the Dormition at Nicza and St. Sophia at Salonika had similar crosses which were replaced by later mosaics. The vaults of the narthex of St. Irene originally had mosaics of a geometrical pattern of which two fragments remain in the soffits of the

arches.

These are not unlike those in the narthex of St. Sophia and

are probably of the time of Justinian.

Although some of the recently destroyed mosaics in the Church of the Dormition at Nicea may have been as early as the seventh century, we will describe this work as a whole under the eleventh century ex-

amples in Chapter IX. In the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai”? there is a work of the sixth or the seventh century representing the Transfigura-

tion (84). This is a subject which has been rarely treated in mosaic, the only other early examples being the symbolical rendering in the apse of Sant'Apollinare in Classe, and the one in SS. Nereo ed Achille in Rome which dates from the ninth century. The Christ stands in a mandorla of three shades of blue. He is provided with a silver nimbus with an

inscribed gold cross, and six rays issue from the body. He holds a scroll in His left hand and blesses with the right. In the foreground, St. John lies prone, covering his face, while St. James and St. Peter kneel.

There

is a surrounding border of busts of Prophets and Apostles in medallions with silver backgrounds. Above, and at the side of the apse, are Moses and the Burning Bush and Moses Receiving the Law. On the center of the arch is a dove in a mandorla and at either side, in the spandrels, is a flying angel holding a globe and a baton or torch. Below the angels are two heads in medallions, on the left a bearded man without the nimbus, and on the right a woman. These heads may represent Justinian and Theodora, or more probably, the unknown donors of the mosaic. One of the most striking features of this mosaic is the blue mandorla

which may be compared with the one at Cyprus in the Panagia Kanakaria. We should also note the use of the silver backgrounds. Most

II4

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

authorities now agree in dating this work in the sixth century, perhaps contemporary with Justinian who restored the church.

Turning westward, we come to Parenzo,"

on the shore of the

Adriatic nearly opposite Ravenna. The basilica was erected by the bishop, Euphrasius, 535-543, and the beautiful mosaics (86-89), comparable to those of San Vitale, date from his time. The Seven Candlesticks of the Apocalypse still exist between the windows of the facade (85), but they are a modern restoration and the rest of the exterior mosaics have disappeared. The apse (86), however, is finely preserved and is one of the glories of the sixth century. In the center, are the

Virgin and Child enthroned, similar to the same subject in Sant'Apollinare Nuovo. Unfortunately, nineteenth-century restoration has somewhat tampered with the original design. On either side are two angels, very similar to those in the apse of San Vitale. Beyond, on the left (87), are St. Maurus holding a crown, the bishop Euphrasius offering a model of the church, and the archdeacon Claudius, all designated by inscriptions; and on the other side, are three anonymous saints, one holding a book, and the other two, their crowns. The Latin inscription below alludes to the foundation of the basilica. Within the arch, is a series of medallions containing the busts of saints. These medallions are alternately of light and dark blue and the saints have gold nimbi.

Above

the arch, is Christ on the globe surrounded

by the Twelve

Apostles. About twenty years ago this frieze was freed from a coat of stucco and restored and only the upper portions of the figures are

original. The inscription at the base of the apse reads:

HOC FUIT IN PRIMIS TEMPLVM QVASSANTE RVINA TERRIBILIS LABSV NEC CERTO ROBORE FIRMVM EXIGVVM MAGNOQVE CARENS TVNC FVRMA METALLO SED MERITIS TANTVM PENDEBANT PVTRIA TECTA VT VIDIT SVBITO LABSVRAM PONDERE SEDEM PROVIDVS ET FIDEI FERVENS ARDORE SACERDVS EVFRASIUS SCA PRECESSIT MENTE RVINAM LABENTES MELIVS SEDITVRAS DERVIT AEDES

OTHER

MOSAICS

TO THE

SEVENTH

CENTURY

IIS

FVNDAMENTA LOCANS EREXIT CVLMINA TEMPLI QVAS CERNIS NVPER VARIO FVLGERE METALLO PERFICIENS COEPTVM DECORAVIT MVNERE MAGNO AEC CLESIAM VOCITA NS SIGNAVIT NOMINE XPI CONGA VDENS OPERI SIC FELIX VOTA PEREGIT In the center of the apse, between the windows, three figures are represented, an Archangel, Zacharius, and St. John the Baptist. Zacharius is clad in a rich cape, or chasuble, and tunic, and carries a censor and a coffer, both of which are adorned with little figures. The Archangel bears a globe upon which is represented a cross with twelve rays. John the Baptist, recognizable by the skin which he wears, carries a

long-handled cross. The badly adjusted tunic which seems a bit irrelevant in connection with the skin, is probably a later restoration. These three figures resemble closely in style the figures in the upper part of the apse.

The space between the window and the apsidal arch on the left is occupied by the Annunciation (88). Above the scene are three shells of the type found in Ravenna, the middle one being reversed. The Virgin is seated upon a throne in front of a building which probably repre-

sents the basilica erected on the site of her house at Nazareth. As a pendant to this scene on the other side we have the Visitation

(89).

Behind St. Elizabeth, at the entrance to the house, stands the

servant with her finger on her chin. Both of these scenes are enframed by the characteristic border formed of alternate rectangles and lozenges found on a number of the early mosaics, notably the arch of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome. The style of these last two compositions does not correspond" with the rest of the work in the apse, and they may well be of a later date, perhaps of the seventh or the eighth century.

The two smaller lateral apses have retained the upper part of their decoration, in both in one, blesses two are very similar in work here is surely

cases a bust saints, and style to the of the sixth

of the beardless Christ Emmanuel who in the other, two bishops. The Christs one in the apse of San Vitale, and the century and contemporary with that of

A HISTORY

116

the central apse. restored.

Moreover,

what

OF MOSAICS

does remain

has been

very little

On the whole, the central apse of Parenzo gives one of the loveliest and most complete impressions we have of Early Christian art. The mosaics are complete, even if restored, and below, is the beautiful facing of colored marbles and mother-of-pearl together with the altar and the baldachino.

At Pola,

not far from Parenzo on the Adriatic coast, there is a

much damaged mosaic in the apse of the little church of Santa Maria del Canneto. The subject was probably the Traditio Legis and the head of Our Lord and another head, which without much doubt is that of St. Peter, are fairly well preserved. This work dates from the middle of the sixth century, contemporary with Parenzo and San Vitale at Ravenna, and it was carried out under the same bishop, Maximian, a native of Pola, who was responsible for the mosaics in the latter church. The execution is very fine, extremely small tesserz being employed, and as we would suppose, it is very similar to San Vitale in style. In Italy, we have already described the early mosaics of the great centers of Rome and Ravenna, and we must now take up the all too few examples which have escaped destruction in other parts of the pen-

insula.

Going westward from Ravenna, we come to the only two early

mosaics which remain at Milan, one in the church of San Lorenzo and the other in Sant'Ambrogio.

The mosaics of San Lorenzo " are in the upper part of the two apses of the little chapel of St. Aquilinus. This chapel to the right of the basilica is older than the church itself which was founded in 451. The apse on the right (90) shows Christ on the globe surrounded by the Twelve Apostles. The Christ is of the youthful antique type, and the Apostles, in spite of a certain stiffness, retain much of the classical feeling. In fact, the general effect of the scene is strikingly like that of some of the earlier catacomb frescoes, especially that of the apse of the

OTHER

MOSAICS

TO THE

SEVENTH

CENTURY

117

Cemetery of Domitilla where we have the same composition, although

the Apostles are standing instead of being seated.

A careful cleaning

of the mosaic has revealed a scrinium at the feet of Christ containing a collection of manuscript rolls similar to the one in the fresco. Christ is shown here in the guise of the teacher, or philosopher of antiquity.

The figures still show individuality and an impressionistic technique, but the background is of gold. Both apses are in bad repair and have been considerably restored by paint.

In the second apse (91) we have a pastoral scene; four shepherds tending sheep in the midst of a rocky landscape. The two central figures and the head of one of the sheep are quite obviously modern, but the rest is in moderately good preservation. The two other shepherds wear a costume similar to those in one of the mosaics of Santa Maria Maggiore. This scene has given rise to several interpretations. Garrucci ™ thought that it represented Jacob with his flocks; others, the Annunciation to the Shepherds. "Traces of horse's hoofs have been discovered in

the sky and this has led Wilpert '* and Toesca "" to consider it either a symbol of the Innocence of Souls or The Shepherds Disturbed by the Heat of the Sun. Wilpert has attempted a restoration showing the Sun with his chariot and four horses above. Here, even more than in the other mosaic, there is a Hellenistic picturesqueness and realism, espe-

cially in the background, and it shows an almost pure late-antique inspiration. However, in spite of the reliance upon the antique, it seems doubtful if these mosaics date from the fourth century, as some authorities believe. They are more probably of the end of the fifth century, very likely of about 495 when Theodoric restored the church. There is a certain stiffness and clumsiness in the figures which does not seem to point to any direct classical influence, even though they are derived from the classical type. The ornamental bands below are similar to

those in some of the Ravenna mosaics.

118

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

The chapel of St. Victor, "" annexed to the church of Sant’Ambrogio, still retains the decoration of the dome and the walls (92, 93). The apse originally had an early mosaic but this has been replaced by a modern one which is without interest. In the cehter of the dome is the bust of St. Victor (92), similar to the medallion portraits of Ravenna, in a wreath symbolical of the four seasons; roses and lilies, wheat, grapes, and olives. On the two monogrammatic crosses are the names of the

donors of the mosaic, and the name VICTOR on the open book identifies the saint. This medallion stands out on a gold ground, and, in fact, the chapel was originally designated as “in Cielo d'Oro," just as the church

of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo at Ravenna was originally called San Martino in Cielo d'Oro, which shows that at this period the use of gold backgrounds was unusual. In the corners are the symbols of the Evangelists, and below, on the lateral walls, are six figures of saints on a blue ground;

Ambrose (93), Gervasius, Protasius, Materus, Nabor and Felix, according to their inscriptions. These are all saints who were buried in the basilica or its immediate vicinity. They have many traits in common with the male saints of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo, and Toesca would date

them midway between the two series of mosaics there.

They stand out

on the uniform blue with very little modelling or relief. On stylistic grounds, therefore, these mosaics may be placed at the end of the fifth

century, contemporary with those of the chapel of St. Aquilinus, or, possibly, in the early sixth century.

Still further westward, on the Ligurian coast, the Baptistery of Albenga

has preserved

fragments

of its early mosaics

(94).

The

principal feature is a Constantinian monogram of white on a background of three concentric circles of different shades of blue. This is inscribed in a square of darker blue and surrounded by twelve white The borders have green foliage on doves symbolizing the Apostles. a white ground, recalling the work in Santa Costanza. In a tympanum The work here is usually are two lambs adoring a jewelled cross. considered to show the radiating influence of Ravenna, but the

OTHER

MOSAICS

TO THE

SEVENTH

CENTURY

119

symbolism, the light backgrounds and the absence of gold cubes have more affinity with the early work in Rome and in Campania. It may be earlier than the end of the fifth century which is the date generally given for it. At Casaranello, in the heel of Southern Italy, near Taranto, there are also some mosaics (95). The little basilica there was originally much like the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia in form. In the dome there is a gold cross on a circular ground of light blue covered with stars, and beyond, another band of dark blue with larger stars, an Oriental conception of the Universe. Beyond the circular ground are vine scrolls with flowers and bunches of grapes. In one arm of the barrel vaults are bands, interlacing circles, and other motifs which all seem to be Eastern in origin. The use of silver as well as gold cubes in the stars has led Wilpert to date the work in the sixth century, perhaps contemporary with SS. Cosma e Damiano in Rome where

silver cubes are also employed, but Haseloff, who first studied it, puts it in the fifth century.

Among the finest of the early mosaics are those of the Baptistery of Soter at Naples ® in spite of the fact that they are in poor con-

dition (96, 97). This baptistery is attached to the Cathedral and it is entirely Eastern in its square form with a cupola on squinches. The mosaics with their combination of genre and decorative the monumental show a certain relationship with early as the Baptistery of the Orthodox, or the Mausoleum of However, in an illuminating article, Mufioz has pointed is probably no direct connection between the two. In the center of the vault is

elements with Ravenna, such Galla Placidia. out that there

a medallion with the monogram

Christ on a blue ground covered with white and gold stars. the monogram the Hand of God holds a golden crown.

of

Above

The medallion

is surrounded by a border of fruit and flowers, vases, and birds, among which is the phoenix with a nimbus as a symbol of the Resurrection.

120

A HISTORY

OF

MOSAICS

Radiating bands of foliage, fruits, and flowers, with birds, ribbons and other motifs, and growing out of urns below, divide the vault into eight trapezoidal compartments, of which, four and a fragment of another are fairly well preserved. The compartments thus formed have, in the upper part, a blue drapery shot with gold and a vase with two birds facing each other, and below, Biblical scenes in more or less complete fragments: The Traditio Legis (96), Christ and the Woman of Samaria, the Marriage of Cana, the Calling of Peter and Andrew, and the Holy Women at the Tomb. The Traditio Legis and the Marriage of Cana are the best preserved. The four squinches contained the symbols of the Evangelists (97), each with six wings. and stars above, but only two of these, the angel and the lion, are preserved, although there are still traces of the bull. The head of the angel is of great beauty, as fine as anything at Ravenna. In the spandrels above the squinches are pastoral scenes, two with shepherds and two sheep alternating with two shepherds and two harts drinking. Each of these compositions is terminated by palm trees and birds. On the walls between these little apses, or squinches, were pairs of martyrs, or perhaps, Apostles on a blue ground, clothed in white and bearing wreaths, and of these, four remain. The pastoral scenes have lively, impressionistic color and may be compared with the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia. They probably date from about the middle of the fifth century, from the time of Bishop Soter, 465-492. The same may be said of the central medallion with its radiating garlands. Some of the Biblical scenes, however, seem weaker both in coloring and in modelling and these may be later, perhaps about the end of the century. These subjects have a good deal of iconographical importance. The only other representations of the Holy Women at the Tomb, for example, before the sixth century, are on two ivories, and this scene and that of the Samaritan are thoroughly Oriental in conception. The technique, as Mufioz has shown, is a kind of mingling of the manner of the Roman pavements

OTHER

MOSAICS

TO THE

SEVENTH

CENTURY

with their graded passages from light to shade and the true manner with its sharp contrasts from light to dark. The tonality of turquoise-blue and green, enlivened with gold, and ness and variety of the garlands and other motifs give an beauty which is rare, even in the fifth century.

I2I

medizval dominant the richeffect of

The fine quality of the mosaics of San Giovanni in Fonte make us regret other early examples in Campania which have perished. St. Paulinus describes the famous apse of the basilica of St. Felix at Nola, a profoundly symbolical composition which must have contrasted with

the hunting and fighting scenes shown on the walls of the nave. "ἢ Fortunately, a part of the decoration at San Prisco, ® near Capua, has been preserved (98,99). The mosaics which were in the church itself have perished and are only known from rather poor drawings. Those in the dome were in the so-called catacomb style with a central medallion from which radiated bands dividing the surface into equal compartments. The medallion contained a throne on a sphere surrounded by stars, and in the compartments were saints carrying wreaths, who were divided from each other by vases flanked by birds.

Around the base there was a broad band of leaves and fruit with small figures of winged genii.

In the apse, were processions of saints.

The actually existing mosaics are in the adjoining chapel of Santa Matrona. The vault It is divided into four ments are filled with doves face each vase

had a central medallion which has disappeared. compartments by palm trees, and the compartbeautiful vine scrolls issuing from vases; two (98).

Three of the lunettes still retain their decoration. In the one over the entrance, is a bust of Christ in a medallion between the Alpha and . Omega (99). That on the left contains the Throne with the Dove

and the Book of the Seven Seals between two of the symbols of the Evangelists, the bull and the eagle.

of St. Matthew

The third has an angel, the symbol

(the lion, symbol of St. Mark, has disappeared)

and

122

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

a representation of Bethlehem. The fourth lunette, known by a seventeenth-century engraving, contained a jewelled cross with the Four Rivers of Paradise and the twelve apostolic doves, precisely the scheme which St. Paulinus adopted for the neighboring basilica of Nola at the beginning of the fifth century. Affinities with the early mosaics of Ravenna and San Giovanni in Fonte would place these in the second half of the fifth century or, possibly, as Bertaux suggested, in the early sixth.

Tombal mosaics ® which have been discovered in Northern Africa and Spain, dating for the most part from the fifth century, and showing a relationship with the early work at Ravenna, the Naples Baptistery and certain Palestinian pavements bear witness to the wide diffusion of these mosaic workers along the shores of the Mediterranean. At Tabarka (Thabraca) in Morocco a number of lids of sarcophagi have figures of orans, vases with affronted birds and vine scrolls executed with cubes of colored marbles and blue glass but with little or no gold. Similar in style are the two recently discovered tombal mosaics at Tarragona which are probably of the fifth century but executed upon sarcophagi of an earlier date. One (100) represents a male figure in a white toga holding a scrol with an inscription above, the whole enclosed in a guilloche border. The other has a Lamb in the center with a vase with naturalistic branches and an inscription, surrounded by a border of foliage. A similar mosaic, although less well preserved, was found at Huesca in Northern Spain and there is a fragment of one in the museum at Valencia which shows that there was probably a wide diffusion of such work throughout the peninsula during these early centuries. There were also scanty remains of fifth-century mosaics in a little church at Constanti near Tarragona. Summing up the work of the first six centuries, we may say, broadly speaking, that there is an ever increasing influence, which is usually considered Eastern, apparent both in the striving for rich and

OTHER

MOSAICS

TO THE

SEVENTH

CENTURY

123

gorgeous effects of color and in abstract and conventionalized design.

The fountainheads of inspiration may well have been in the Near East, in Syria, Asia Minor, and, later, in Constantinople itself, but this is difficult to prove on account of the almost complete destruction of the work in these regions. The Hellenistic tradition, however, lasted on throughout the period, and at times is strongly felt, especially in Italy itself, where it was reinforced by the native classical tradition of Rome. Rome and Ravenna, which have more to show us than any of the other centers, even if they did not originate and give the great creative impulses, fused many diverse elements into styles which may properly

be called their own. An interesting hypothesis, formulated by Diehl and others, is to consider a great part of the Eastern influence in these mosaics as the result of the spreading out of a flourishing creative center in Syria,

especially in Antioch.

Ravenna, Parenzo, St. Demetrius, San Giovanni

in Fonte, San Prisco and others resemble each other strongly in a broad way, however much they may differ in minor and, apparently, more local characteristics. Antioch, a great cosmopolitan port, midway between Egypt and the Hinterland of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia, was one of the most important centers for the development and the diffusion of Early Christian iconography. Little of its mosaics and nothing, even of its architecture, survive, and we only surmise an Antiochene style from certain minor objects; illustrated manuscripts, ivories, silver and other articles of luxury which possibly had their common place of origin here. We have only this, as yet, uncertain foundation upon which to base a definite style. Nevertheless, many of the characteristics of these mosaics, which must have had a common source, are those which we would expect to find in Syria. Palestine, the center of the Faith, provided ideas, and, no doubt, much of the iconography, but in the earliest times it was without a well-established artistic tradition and this may have been supplied by artists from the flourishing schools of

I24

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Antioch and Alexandria which stood on either side. As we shall see, the mosaics of the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem and in the Great Mosque of Damascus of the late seventh and early eighth centuries, were very likely executed by Syrian artists. We may hope that further research and, especially, the excavations now going on at Antioch itself will clear up some of these very interesting and still baffling points. Italian mosaics as widely separated as those of Ravenna, Albenga on the Ligurian coast, Campania and Casaranello, and others in the

Mediterranean from Salonika to Spain and Northern Africa, as well as pavements from Palestine, however they may have developed locally

into distinctive styles, have sufficient characteristics in common to infer that they go back ultimately to a common source. The art relied upon a special material and highly trained craftsmen, and we may suppose that the centers where it first flourished were at or near those localities which were noted for the production of glass, such as Egypt and Syria, and later, possibly Constantinople itself. Mosaicists from such centers would spread out to supply the demand, bringing the material with them, and would largely control the character of the work, until certain places, such as Ravenna or Rome became strong enough to establish schools and traditions and develop a more or less independent style. All this would have been facilitated by the manifold maritime contacts between important centers which flourished throughout the whole of the Early Christian period.

THE

SEVENTH

AND

EIGHTH

CENTURIES

Tur

SrzvkNTH

AND EicHTH

CENTURIES

Jerusalem: the "Dome of the Rock".—Damascus: the Great Mosque.—Spain: the Sanctuary of the Mosque at Cordova.— The Roman group: reasons for the strong Eastern influence.— Sant'Agnese.—Oratory of St. Venantius —Santo Stefano Rotondo. -—-San Pietro in Vincoli —Oratory of John VII—San Teodoro.—

St. Sophia, Salonika.

VII.

THE

SEVENTH

AND

EIGHTH

CENTURIES

During the seventh and the eighth centuries, the vital centers of mosaic production must have still been in the Near East, but practically all traces of the work there have disappeared. It is, on the whole,

an interlude between two great periods—the time of the Arab invasions and the iconoclastic controversy. The Eastern Empire was at a low ebb, awaiting the revival under the Macedonian emperors of the tenth century. Two series stand out, however, in the midst of this general

barrenness, one in the mosque at Jerusalem known as “The Dome of the Rock," and the other in the Great Mosque at Damascus. The Dome of the Rock, the Mosque

and sometimes called the Blue Mosque

of Omar" of the Crusaders,

from the colored tiles of the

exterior, was built by the Caliph Abd al Melek in 691. It is a dome structure of centralized plan. An octagonal outer arcade and an inner circular arcade lead to the central space which is covered by a cupola on a high drum. The rich marbles of the walls and columns, the gilded cornices, the colored glass of the windows and the mosaics combine to form an interior “surpassed in gorgeousness of color and mystery of lighting by no other shrine, not even St. Mark’s itself. A series of circular enclosures are set one within the other, so disposed that the columns and piers do not conceal one another but permit you a view

of the whole from almost any part of the building.” * The mosaics are in three groups.

The

first * (101)

is on the

spandrels of the octagonal arcade and is dated by a Kufic inscription 691-2. The second group (102) is on the spandrels of the arches of the circular arcade, on the outer face only, and although it bears no inscription it is contemporary with the first group. The third series (103) is seen on the two registers of the drum and has an inscription referring to the restoration of 1028.

128

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

These three groups form a vast homogeneous scheme although they differ distinctly in style from each other. Those of the octagonal arcade which are, perhaps, the most striking are largely composed of bold floral motifs (101) which fit into the triangular spaces of the spandrels. Each motif is similar to the others in its general construction

but varies infinitely in detail.

The soffits of the arches are adorned with

garlands, bands, and rosettes. The mosaics of the circular arcade are composed of a more continuous pattern of sumptuous acanthus scrolls (102) developing out of the plant itself, or vases at the base, and running over the arches.

The same motif is repeated on the four great piers of the dome which break the continuity of the arches. Lastly, on the lower part of the drum we have a band of acanthus scrolls growing out of elaborate vases crowned by diadems and the socalled Sassanian winged motif. A similar scheme is repeated in the rectangular panels between the windows in the upper register of the drum. These scrolls are stiffer and more stylized (103) than those of the circular arcade but this was probably done consciously as being more in keeping with a continuous band of decoration which should emphasize the horizontal feeling. This group is probably contemporary with the others, and some of the more mechanical effects may be due

to the eleventh century restoration. have suffered more restored.

than any

The panels of the upper register

other part of the work

and are badly

The vault of the east porch has a mosaic of checkerboard pattern composed of small squares. These are perhaps the finest purely decorative mosaics in existance. No figures appear, in accordance with the precepts of the Koran, and the designs are entirely derived from plant forms, vases, and so on.

The whole scheme is perfectly unified in its broader lines and adapted to the architecture, but at the same

time, the individual motifs

are

THE

SEVENTH

AND

EIGHTH

CENTURIES

129

subtly diversi&ed, so that we get an infinite variety of form within prescribed limits. The method is no less admirable than the design. Simple, strong colors are employed, shades of blue, of green, touches of 'red and orange, emphasized by spots of mother-of-pearl, silver, and gold against a plain gold ground, but the dominant tones are always green, blue and gold. Where the gold is used in the designs and not in the background, the cubes are tilted to get stronger reflections of light and are often contrasted with silver cubes. The mother-of-pearl is always placed where the light may strike from the side to get the full value of tone.

In short, a consummate technique where nearly every tessera seems to have been manipulated to get the full zsthetic effect. This work was probably done by Christians, for the Mohammedans had no school of their own capable of producing it. The style resolves

itself into the early Hellenistic tradition of naturalism modified by Oriental conventionalism and abstraction. It is probably not Byzantine in origin but may well be a product of that Syro-Palestinian School with Antioch as a center, which, at an earlier period may have influenced the art of Ravenna. Some of the motifs go back to the early art of Mesopotamia and Persia.

Early in the eighth century the Caliph Walid I, d. 706, transformed the Byzantine church of St. John into wbat has since been known as the Great Mosque of Damascus, and caused it to be embellished with mosaics * (104,105). Those on the arches of the west portico and a great panel over one hundred and fifty feet long within the portico have been uncovered by Eustache de Lorey, and the extraordinary architectural compositions in which no figures appear, like the work in the Dome of the Rock, but in which are interspersed naturalistic

trees and foliage, give us, perhaps, more than a hint of the glories of a great vanished secular art like that of the Byzantine palaces or of Bagdad.

The mosque became, perhaps, the most famous in Islam and

130

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

the Arab writers sang its praises.

Muquaddasi, writing at the end of

the tenth century says “The mosque is the most beautiful thing that

the Muslims possess today." *

On the exterior of the adjacent Dome

of the Treasury there are other later mosaics Jerusalem but less good in execution.

resembling

those

of

Here, in the Great Panel, we find groups of buildings with foliage similar to those in the backgrounds

of Alexandrian

or

Syrian

origin

of early illuminated manuscripts

(104).

There

are

superimposed

structures like the fanciful theatrical decoration of the so-called fourth Pompeian style, as in the Villa from Boscoreale or the House of Livia at Primaporta, reflections, probably, of a once flourishing secular art derived from both Hellenistic and Oriental sources, ‚as opposed to the purely religious. We have already noted the same influences in St. George and in St. Demetrius at Salonika and in the Baptistery of the Orthodox at Ravenna and we shall find them continuing until the fourteenth century mosaics of the Kahrie Djami at Constantinople. But in these examples, however much the backgrounds may predominate, they are always considered a setting for a religious theme, while here, the buildings and trees are portrayed for themselves alone in sheer love of sumptuous decorative effect (105). It has been thought that the Great Panel represents an actual scene. The river would be the

Barada, flowing through Damascus which is shown in the group with the bridge, and beyond would be the villages of the far-famed oasis of the Ghuta. It was but natural that the Moslems with little or no developed art of their own, and with their antipathy for the religion of those whom they had conquered, should turn to this purely secular phase of East Christian art, of which Syria had undoubtedly been a flourishing center. This work, like that in the Dome of the Rock, was done by Christians, and technically it is admirable. In the gold backgrounds the tessere are often tilted forward to catch the light. Silver is employed for the reflections of water and other high-lights, and there is frequent

THE

SEVENTH

use of mother-of-pearl. blue, violet, yellow, red, red limestone are used in trees, with their shadows

AND

EIGHTH

CENTURIES

131

The colors are comparatively simple: green, and black. "essere of white, pink, brown and addition to those of glass. “Some of the finest in mauve and light pink, curiously anticipate,

as do those at the Villa Livia at Rome, the paintings of Cézanne!” * Muqaddasi's description of the Great Mosque, written about 985 and translated by Miss Van Berchem, is worth quoting. He says: “Then it [the sahn] is entirely paved with white marble and the walls are faced with variegated (mujazza‘) marble up to the height of two fathoms and thence to the ceiling with polychrome mosaic (fusäfs@), in the gilt parts

of which are pictured trees, cities, and inscriptions of the greatest beauty and delicacy, of exquisite workmanship. There is hardly a tree or a notable town which has not been pictured on these walls. The capitals of the columns are gilt, and all the arches (ganätir) of the porticoes (arwiqa pl. of riwäg) were decorated with mosaics. All the columns of [i.e., next] the sahn are of white marble; the surrounding walls, the arches, and the little arches (firdkk) above them are decorated with mosaics forming inscriptions and decorative motives (£urih). The whole roof is covered with sheets of lead, the cresting (sharräfsyäat) is decorated with mosaic on both faces. In the court, to the right, stands a Treasury on eight columns, the walls of which are encrusted with mosaics.

Al-Walid, they say, gathered together for its construction skilful artisans proceeds eighteen counting the King

of Persia, India, the Maghreb, and Rum. He of the Land Tax of Syria for seven years, shiploads of gold and silver which sailed for the tolls (älät) and the mosaics which were of Rum. . . ." And the commentator adds in

devoted to it the employing also Cyprus, without sent to him by a note: “Mosaic

is composed of [little pieces of] glass, like the two-drachm weights, of yellow, dust grey, black, red, black the last named] are made by placing gold on another layer of thin glass. Then the plaster with gum-arabic, and spread on the wall, and

[glass]

and white, and gilt. [For their surface, covered by is worked up into a paste this mosaic is embedded

132

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

in it and figures and inscriptions are formed. Some parts are entirely encrusted with gold mosaic, so that the wall appears to be a blaze of gold". The Moslems, throughout their history, employed mosaic to some extent, although they were always more interested in various kinds of inlays which should be properly classed as intarsia, and in tile. Whatever may have existed at Bagdad has disappeared. Later fragments of the tomb of the Sultan Baybarsat Damascus of 1285 are much inferior to those of the Great Mosque. Baybars also restored the mosaics of the Great Mosque. The art was still practiced at Damascus in the four-

teenth century as the Mausoleum of Tankiz has a rather crudely executed scroll decoration which attempts to imitate the earlier style. We may take up here the only other important work done under Mohammedan influence. This is the sanctuary of the Mosque at Cordova, dating from the early tenth century (106). The caliph, El-Hakim, wrote to the Byzantine emperor, Nicephoras Phocas, for mosaic workers, such was their fame at this time, and the emperor sent a mosaicist and a present of cubes. These mosaics consist of ornamental bands and Arabic inscriptions on the facade of the mihrab and around the three doors, and also in the cupola of the Capilla del Zancarron, which forms a sort of vestibule to the mihrab. "There are floral designs on a gold ground, more conventionalized than those of Damascus or the Dome of the Rock. Great richness and harmony are obtained with the use of but a few colors; dark blues, reds, ‚and greens. The cupola with its penetrating arches and small central dome with eight melon compartments is especially fine on account of the way in which the patterns are fitted to the varied surfaces. There is a delicacy of treatment both in design and in the use of tessere which are much smaller than the average, and this blends extremely well with the surrounding decoration of intricately carved marble which has taken on the tone of old ivory. Returning to the Christian mosaics, we find the only extant examples surely of the seventh century in Rome.” It is not surprising

THE

SEVENTH

AND

EIGHTH

CENTURIES

that these are all strongly Eastern, or Byzantine in character.

133

The

popes under whom they were produced were for the most part from the eastern provinces. Greeks, Syrians and other orientals came in great numbers to Rome and Southern Italy. Their churches and monasteries were rich and influential. A strong impetus was given these migrations by the conquests of the Arabs and the dissensions caused in the empire itself by the iconoclastic controversy. The close ties which were thus brought about between Rome and the Near East are naturally very apparent in contemporary mosaics and painting.

The apse of Sant'Agnese

(107) was executed under Honorius I,

625-640. "This composition in its simplicity, the placing of the three figures against the plain gold background, is one of the most impressive in all mosaic. In the center is the saint in the sumptuous costume of a Byzantine empress, with spots of red on her cheeks. Above, the Hand of God is stretched forth to place the wreath upon her head; at her feet lies the sword of the executioner; flames break forth at either side. On the left, the pope, Honorius, presents a model of the church; on the right, we have either Sylvester I under whom the basilica was constructed, or Innocent I who restored it, each wearing a brown chasuble and a white pallium. "These stiff, elongated figures show little relief or modelling; the bodies are hardly realized beneath the rigid garments. They have the effect of decorative images and are perhaps even more impressive for this reason. Venturi has pointed out that they seem “woven in" as if they were more brilliant spots on the brilliant brocade of the background, and, in fact, they anticipate the Roman work of the ninth century which treats the surface almost as if it were a gorgeous textile. The almost isolated figure of St. Agnes foreshadows the apse of Torcello, and in the twelfth century a similar composition with three figures is used in the apse of the Cappella San Giusto in the cathedral of Trieste.

The inscription below *—gold letters on a blue ground—is worth

134

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

translating to give an idea of the spirit in which the work was conceived:

“The cut (shaped) metals produce a painting of gold and the light of day seems to be compressed and enclosed in it. One would think that the dawn, assembling the clouds from liquid sources, burns and spreads life to the fields. Such a light, the rainbow produces among the stars; such a purple brilliance, are the colors of the peacock. Chaos, which was able to put an end to night as well as day, has brought the martyr from the tomb. By a sign from on high which is seen by all, the pontiff, Honorius, has proclaimed these vows. His vestments and his acts define him; his visage lets one perceive a pure heart." The ancient church of San Teodoro (108), a little circular structure of unknown origin at the foot of the Palatine, contains an apsidal mosaic which has been so much restored that it is difficult to place. Opinion, generally, would give it to the early seventh century, but Wilpert puts it at the time of Felix IV, contemporary with SS. Cosma e Damiano. In the center, is Christ seated on a globe, blessing, and holding a staff surmounted by a cross. We may compare this with the figure in the apse of San Vitale or that in San Lorenzo fuori-le-mura. On either side are St. Peter and St. Paul who each present a martyr, the one on the right probably being St. Theodore, and the other, possibly Cleonicus. The gold background is almost entirely modern, the head of Christ and the hand of St. Paul are remade, and the saint next to St. Paul is a late restoration, but the main outlines of the composition have been kept. Much of the restoration was done by the Barberini in the middle of the seventeenth century. The best preserved figures are St. Peter and the following saint, and here the heads have a good deal of resemblance to

the medallions of San Vitale. Adjoined to the Lateran Baptistery is the oratory of St. Venantius (109-111), containing mosaics of the time of John IV, 640-642, called Dalmata from his place of origin. Venantius had been a Dalmatian bishop, and the Istrian schism now being ended, the pope thought that

THE SEVENTH

AND

EIGHTH CENTURIES

135

by doing honor to the national saint of the province he would unite it more closely to Rome. With Venantius and the bishop, Domnius, eight canonized Slavonian warriors were also represented. Thus, the mosaic

has a certain political character. In the upper part of the apse (109), on the background of red and blue clouds, there is a rather magnified bust of Christ blessing, flanked by two angels. Below, in the center, is the figure of the Virgin as an

orant, and at either side (110, 111), are eight saints, four in the apse itself and four on the adjacent walls.

These include St. Peter and St.

Paul, St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, the Pope with a model of the church, and the eight martyrs. Four panels above show the symbols of the Evangelists in pairs and the towns of Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The bust of Christ blessing is one of the first examples in of the type of the Byzantine Pantocrator which in the course centuries assumes colossal proportions, fills the apses of Hosios and Daphni, and comes to a climax in the marvellous figures of and Monreale.

mosaic of the Lucas Cefalü

Two hands seem to have worked here. The figures in the apse are thick-set with large heads, but those on the walls are more elongated, stiffer, with smaller heads more in the manner of Byzantine elegance. There is some attempt at portraiture, not unlike San Vitale which was a century earlier. The color is rich and brilliant with repeated touches of coral and gold. It is no longer fused, as at Sant’Agnese, but more vivid and spotty, somewhat like the later ninth-century Roman work.

Here, too, like Sant'Agnese, the inscription " below the apse, in gold letters on a blue ground, speaks of the “metallic brilliance equal to the sacred waters,” showing that these early mosaicists were fully alive to the purely esthetic appeal of their work. In a chapel in Santo Stefano Rotondo, on the Colian, there is a

mosaic (112) which is usually attributed to Pope Theodore, 642-649,

136

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

although there is no documentary evidence to corroborate this. According to the Liber Pontificalis, the pope had the bodies of the two martyrs transported from the Via Nomentana, where they were buried, to this spot, and the mosaic probably commemorates this event. In the center of the niche, is a jewelled cross surmounted by a bust of Christ in a medallion. Above, in a semi-circle of blue, studded with stars, the Hand of God holds a martyr's crown. On either side are the two martyrs, Primus and Felicianus, designated by inscriptions. Each wears a purple tunic with a white chlamys. Below, red flowers spring from the soil which is indicated by a strip of green. This mosaic is in very bad condition. The heads of the two saints as well as the bust of Christ are wholly restored, the garments have been much done over, and a part of the gold background has been frankly indicated in paint. The central motif of the cross and the medallion is, perhaps, derived from early Palestinian iconography; it should be compared with the apse of St. Irene at Constantinople and the early apse of Santa Sophia at Salonika. Where there has been no restoration the tesserz are more irregular in shape than in preceding work, and, especially in the background, they are arranged to give a good deal of variety of texture to the surface. As Venturi says, they give almost the impression of the strokes of a brush.

The church of San Pietro in Vincoli contains a very interesting panel representing St. Sebastian (113), not as the beautiful adolescent familiar in later art, but as an old and bearded man holding a martyr's crown. A late inscription on the altar would give the mosaic to the time of Pope Agathon, 678-681, and there is no good reason to dispute this. According to the old writer, Paulus Diaconus, the pestilence of 680 almost depopulated Rome, and even the rest of Italy, and we have here, probably, one of the first of those plague offerings which were so common later in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The background is blue, not gold, and this has led some to suppose that the work is earlier than the seventh century, but the style of the figure makes 680 seem a

THE

SEVENTH

AND

EIGHTH

CENTURIES

137

reasonable date. The cubes are placed rather far apart so that the cement between them is very apparent. This gives a certain softness, but without detracting from the clearness of the design.

The demolition in 1609 of the oratory of John VII,” 705-707, in consequence of the rebuilding of St. important and probably one of the ensembles. There are still fragments and carried away, and we can gain

Peter’s, destroyed one of the most finest of the early Roman mosaic of the mosaics which were preserved an idea of the arrangement of the

scheme from the drawings which were made by Grimaldi, the architect, towards the end of the sixteenth century, now in the Vatican Library,” by the engraving of Ciampini * (114) and by a seventeenth century fresco. On one wall was a central panel of the Virgin as an orant with a smaller figure of the Pope below at one side. This was surrounded by scenes from the life of Christ in seven compartments, arranged in the manner of a Byzantine retable. Several of the compartments contained two or more episodes grouped together, the scheme followed by Ghiberti in his doors for the Florentine Baptistery. On another wall were scenes from the life of St. Peter in six compartments. The striking innovation in composition here—smaller panels grouped about a great central figure in the later medieval manner—has led some to suppose that the smaller scenes were added afterwards, and that only the figure of the Virgin as an orant is of the time of John VII; but there is no proof of this. This Virgin (115), now in the church of San Marco at Florence, is a noble figure, clad in the costly garments of a Byzantine empress. Her robe is of a rich red and is adorned with pearls. On her head is a jewelled diadem. Her features are regular and impressive, and the color in the cheeks is indicated by red lines recalling the red spots on the cheeks of St. Agnes. The upper part of the figure of John VII has also been preserved (116), and is now in the new Museo Petriano at St. Peter's. This is of much smaller scale than the Virgin and, as we know, it was placed in the lower left-hand part of the panel. The Pope, who carries a model of the chapel has a square nimbus and wears a yellow tunic with

138

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

reddish folds. The main lines of the composition are indicated in black. This fragment has probably been a good deal restored. Other fragments which are now in the Museo Petriano are the much restored bust of St. Peter Preaching (117), from the scenes of his life; and, from the life of Christ, the Washing of the Child (118), the head of Christ from the Entry into Jerusalem, and the badly restored Virgin and Longinus from the Crucifixion. The head of Christ is well preserved ; it is excellent in technique, with widely spaced tesserz and fine in color. The fragment of the Washing of the Child, which formed a part of the scene of the Nativity occupying the space above the central panel, is also in very good condition and shows an almost impressionistic treatment. The iconography of this scene showing the midwife, Salome, is purely Eastern in origin. Also from the Nativity is the fine bust of the Virgin, draped in a blue mantle on a gold ground, now in the cathedral of Orte. As in most of the other work, the tesserz here are irregular in shape and vary in size, permitting the cement to be very apparent, and fusing the brilliant colors together. The finest bit which has come down to us is, undoubtedly, the central portion of the Adoration of the Magi (119), now in the sacristy of Santa Maria in Cosmedin. The Virgin is seated on a jewelled throne with a green cushion and wears a violet robe and a blue mantle. The infant Jesus, on her knees, holds a volumen, or scroll, in the left hand and stretches out His right hand towards a coffer filled with gold offered to

Him by one of the Magi.

Of the latter figure there remains only the hand

and the arm, clad in green. Above, at the right, is an angel, robed in white, with blue and green wings and a blue nimbus, and Joseph is standing behind the throne with lowered head. 'The cubes here are widely spaced and vary in size. Marble cubes, as well as glass, are used, especially in the flesh tones. Perhaps no mosaic in Rome is more worthy of careful study than this, on account of the excellence of the technique

and the skill with which vibrating spots of jewel-like color are obtained. It is now so placed that it may be examined at close range and in a good

THE

SEVENTH

AND

EIGHTH

CENTURIES

139

light. The rich chromatic fusion and the texture of the surface, as well as the decorative line, are, perhaps, Byzantine, but there is an undercurrent of classicism in the well-rounded, noble figures and in the sweep of the draperies.

It is not until the very end of the eighth century that we find other mosaics in Rome, and, as these properly belong to the ninth-century group we will take them up in the next chapter. Although this group of seventh and eighth century Roman mosaics show an ever-increasing Byzantine influence which is prevalent in the

whole of the eastern Mediterranean, they have an individuality which is sufficient to set them apart as a definite school within the general development. Very few traces of the earlier classical impressionism or naturalism remain and we find the usual Eastern stylization, neglect of the third dimension and use of broad masses of color to fill in the contours, common to all work of the period. But it is especially the treatment of color that sets these mosaics apart. The masses are enlivened and broken up chromatically within themselves by spots of often vividly contrasting tones which give a warmth and vitality quite apart from the design itself. These tendencies may be seen, of course, in earlier mosaics, at Ravenna or Campania, or elsewhere, but no where outside of Rome are they so strongly developed. The style is already well marked in the apse of Sant’-

Agnese and even more so in the Oratory of St. Venantius and the Chapel of John VII, anticipating the work of the ninth century, which, as we shall see, in some respects merely follows and elaborates to the extent of mannerisms, an already well-established tradition. There are few extant mosaics in the Near East between the eighth and the eleventh centuries. The work at Nicza was probably as late as the eleventh century, and it is very doubtful if the two apses at Cyprus which have been placed as early as the sixth century, are earlier than the second great period of Byzantine development. However, some of the mosaics in Santa Sophia at Salonika ” are

140

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

undoubtedly much earlier than the eleventh century Ascension of the dome, and the evidence deduced from the inscriptions and the style would place them in the last quarter of the eighth century at the close of the iconoclastic period. In the center of the vault before the apse, on a gold ground, is a circle with a silver ground containing a cross. The rest of the vault is

covered with a design of gold squares, alternately containing silver crosses and vine leaves. In the apse is a seated figure of the Virgin holding the Child upon her knees (120). On the gold background of the apse there may still be distinguished a cross, now of gold, but which may have been

originally of color and similar to the cross of Saint Irene at Constantinople and others which have disappeared. This cross may have been as early as the sixth century. Similar in style to the apse is the central medallion of the dome with the figure of Our Lord in the mandorla supported by angels. The medallion itself is enclosed in a border of foliage. These mosaics are inferior in quality to sixth and seventh century work. The figures are heavy and clumsy, there is less richness of color, and the technique is much cruder than that of the earlier work at Salonika, at Ravenna or elsewhere. They obviously belong to a period of decadence, and it seems logical to place them at the end of the eighth or in

the ninth century.

THE

ROMAN NINTH

SCHOOL

OF

CENTURY

THE

Tur

Roman

ScHooL

oF THE

NINTH

CENTURY

Peculiarities of the style: Eastern and Western influences.—SS. Nereo ed Achille.—The Triclinium of the Lateran.—The Christ Írom the Vatican crypt.—Santa Maria in Domnica.—Santa Cecilia. —Santa Prassede.—San Marco—Infiuence of the Roman School elsewhere; Germigny-des-Prés, Aix-la-Chapelle.

VIII.

THE

ROMAN NINTH

SCHOOL

OF

THE

CENTURY

This group of mosaics ** which we shall now consider, is, in certain respects, one of the most interesting, and it has given rise to a good deal of discussion. In general, the style seems to be purely Byzantine in origin, especially in regard to the technique, in the conventionalization and the sacrifice of reality to sumptuous ornamental effects. But the figures of these apses have a peculiar character of their own which is

quite unlike anything we know in actual Byzantine art.

It has been

suggested that they show a Northern influence in the types of the heads and in a certain crudeness and coarseness of execution, which came in on account of the close relations existing between Rome and the empire of Charlemagne at this time. It is, however, difficult to prove this by any actual comparisons. The Northern ivories and other objects which are brought forward to substantiate this claim have their own peculiar characteristics which do not, to my mind, bear any close resemblance to the Roman mosaics. Whatever the reason may be, this Roman style has much originality. When one has once seen these strange haunting figures woven into their gold backgrounds they are not easily forgotten. Until recently it has been the fashion to define this style as decadent. This is largely on account of the almost complete absence of modelling in the figures and the incorrect drawing; the over-large heads with their great, staring eyes giving a neurotic and almost sinister expression to the faces. At present, a more catholic taste has modified this point of view. We realize that the aim was the antithesis of naturalism. "The figures are thought of as images, or icons, almost as symbols, to produce a direct religious appeal, further enhanced by brilliant effects of color. Abstraction may at times be carried too far, resulting in mere awkwardness, and the figures may not always be well adapted to the space, but on the whole they achieve

144

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

a certain solemn grandeur, and as mere decoration and color they are superb. Near the Scala Santa in the piazza of the Lateran there is an imposing eighteenth-century hemicycle containing an apsidal mosaic (121). Its history has been varied. Originally in the Triclinium of Leo III, 795816, it was entirely restored in 1625 by Cardinal Barberini" Under Clement XII, 1730-1740, it was removed to the Scala Santa, broken up and entirely remade, and placed in its present position by Benedict XIV in 1743. The reason for thus honoring this mosaic is that it commemorated a great political event, the accord between Leo III and Charlemagne

and the foundation of the Empire of the West.

It therefore dates from

about 800.

Actually, we have here an eighteenth century copy which gives no idea of the original style, but the old lines of the composition have been followed fairly accurately. On the arch to the right is Christ, enthroned, giving the keys to St. Peter and the banner to Constantine. The corresponding scene on the left shows St. Peter giving a pallium, symbolical of spiritual power, to Leo III and a banner to Charlemagne. The Latin inscription below refers to this: “Holy Peter! Thou givest life to Leo, the Pope, and victory to Charles, the king." In the apse we have the Apparition of Jesus to the Apostles. Our Lord stands on a mount from

which issue the Four Rivers of Paradise.

He holds a book with the

words: PA X VO BI S, “Peace be with you." On either side are the Eleven Apostles. The inscription below refers to this scene. Two Apostles’ heads, saved from the old mosaic and now in the Vatican Library, give some idea of the style and they are not typical of the ninth century. The faces are elongated and emphasized by dark lines, but they show strength and a certain plastic quality. The lost mosaic of the apse of Santa Susanna was also executed under Leo III. Ciampini's engraving of it shows Christ and the Virgin with various saints, as well as the Pope and Charlemagne.

THE

ROMAN

SCHOOL

OF THE

NINTH

CENTURY

I45

A niche in the confessio below the main altar of St. Peter's contains

a mosaic (122) representing Christ blessing, and holding a book with the inscription: EGO SUM VIA VERITAS ET VITA QUI CREDIT IN ME VIVET“I am the Path, the Truth, and Life, he who believes in Me shall live." There are signs of a good deal of restoration. In Ciampini's reproduction there is a globe surmounted by a cross in place

of the open book; a drawing made by Grimaldi in the early seventeenth century shows the book, but with the inscription differently placed. A passage in the Liber Pontificalis would tend to attribute it to the time of Leo III, and, as far as the style is concerned, there is no reason to sup-

pose that it is not of the early ninth century, although some would place it as early as the seventh.

In the church of SS. Nereo ed Achille there is an original mosaic of the time of Leo (123). This mosaic, which is on the triumphal arch, is a very abstract rendering of the Transfiguration, a subject rare in Early Christian iconography. In the center is Christ in a mandorla, with Moses and Elias at either side, while Peter, James, and John are prostrated on the ground. At the left is the Annunciation, and corresponding to it on the right, is the Virgin holding the Child before her in the stiff attitude of a Byzantine icon, accompanied by an angel. According to Venturi ” this scene represents an Adoration of the Magi in a reduced

form.

The Virgin wears a red robe in both scenes.

It is rather lifeless in character and one of the less successful works of the period but it has decorative value and is well adapted to the space. The forms have no substance and appear to be woven into the background. There is a certain pleasing vertical rhythm in the composition, and harmony of color. The apse was, doubtless, also adorned with a mosaic, but of this we have no record. Pascal I, 817-824, is responsible for three important works;

Santa

Prassede (124-129), Santa Maria in Domnica (130), and Santa Cecilia (131). Of these, the ensemble in Santa Prassede is the most notable,

146

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

and, next to Santa Maria Maggiore, it is the most extensive and complete

series of mosaics in Rome.!^ On the triumphal arch (124) we have a subject hitherto not seen; the New Jerusalem according to the vision of St. John. In the golden enclosure which is studded with jewels stands Christ accompanied by two angels and various saints (125). At the left is Santa Prassede and at the right is the Virgin, not Santa Pudenziana as some have supposed. Beyond the Virgin are St. John the Baptist, St. Paul, and St. John the Evangelist, and beyond Santa Prassede is St. Peter. The figures of an old man and a youth behind the others at both ends of the row are either Isaiah and Jeremiah, or Moses and Elias. The open gates of the city are guarded by angels, and beyond are the groups of the Elect, the one on the right preceded by St. Peter and the other, by St. Paul. The blue sky of the background is covered with small white clouds, and below there is a green meadow with flowers. Still lower in the spandrels are the multitudes spoken of in the Apocalypse, clad in white and carrying palms. Here, we have a complicated subject admirably treated from the point of view of composition. The individual figures are of the usual style of the time, stiff, with little or no modelling, and expressionless faces. They seem almost like decorative spots in a design. The color is not as brilliant as in some others of the period, but the whites, reds, greens, and dark slate-blues are fused together by the irregular tesserz, and are impressive if only from their sheer mass. The apsidal arch (124) is clearly a copy of the earlier one at SS.

Cosma e Damiano of which so little remains.

In a blue medallion are

the Lamb, the Cross, and the Throne below with the Book of the Seven Seals. The seven Candlesticks, the angels and the symbols of the Evangelists, together with the Twenty-Four Elders offering their crowns, complete the Apocalyptic vision (126). The background is gold and the whole composition is surrounded by one of the usual borders of the time, a band of alternating rectangles and ovals. The figures here are stiff and

THE

ROMAN

SCHOOL

OF THE

NINTH

CENTURY

147

uninteresting, especially the groups of the Elders, which are monotonous and uninspired even from a purely decorative point of view. It is interesting chiefly from the fact that it is a complete version of the much finer one of SS. Cosma e Damiano which has been so sadly mutilated. The scheme of the apse also follows the precedent set by SS. Cosma e Damiano. In the center, against a background of clouds, a colossal

Christ raises His right hand in proclamation and holds a volumen with the other. On either side are three figures; on the left, Santa Pudenziana between St. Paul and Pascal I, on the right, Santa Prassede between St. Peter and a deacon. At the extremities are the two palm-trees, and on the one on the right, is perched the symbolic phoenix. Above, is the Hand of God holding a laurel crown, and below the feet of the Savior is the Jordan. The whole stands out on a blue ground.

The lower zone has the usual subject of the Pascal Lamb standing on the Mount with the Four Rivers of Paradise, and at either side the Twelve Sheep, white on a gold ground, issuing from Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The inscription, gold letters on a blue ground, speaks of the “brilliancy of the varied metals" and refers to the translation of the relics of martyrs to the church.

Compared with SS. Cosma e Damiano the figures seem stiff and lifeless, but instead of emphasizing these so-called decadent qualities, let us, rather, admire the beauty of the scheme as mere design, the vibrant color effects, like a rich brocade. One should remember these are religious mosaics, seen in the dim light of a sanctuary, from this point of view the uncompromising stylization strengthens

fine, that and the

emotional and zsthetic appeal. The chapel of San Zeno (127-129), also at Santa Prassede and the work of Pascal I, is unique in Rome. Even the form of this little structure with its cupola on a square plan, is Byzantine. It was erected by the pope

as a tomb for his mother, Theodora Episcopa, and dedicated to the martyr, Zeno, whose relics were transferred here from the catacombs on

148

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

the Appian Way. The interior is completely covered with mosaics on a gold ground and the impression they produce is almost comparable in

its way to that of the mausoleum of Galla Placidia. On the exterior wall over the door, are two superimposed series of busts in medallions (127). Those of the upper series are blue on a gold ground, those of the lower, gold on a blue ground, giving an interesting rhythm to the design. In the center of the upper row is a medallion of Christ, twice the size of the others, backed by a cross, and on either side are six Apostles. In the lower series are the Virgin and Child, the saints, Zeno and Valentinian, and eight female martyrs. Below are two later

portraits of popes in rectangular panels. In the center of the vault (128) there is a medallion containing the bust of Christ upheld by four angels, recalling the similar scheme of the vault of the Archiepiscopal Palace at Ravenna. In the lunette over the

entrance are busts of the Virgin, SS. Prassede and Pudenziana, and Theodora, the mother of Pope Pascal, the latter being provided with a square nimbus. Above is the Pascal Lamb surrounded by four stags. On the wall above the altar are the Virgin and St. John the Baptist, and in the lunette below, Christ surrounded by four personages, one of whom is probably St. Peter. It is thought that this scene represents the Transfiguration, and, if so, the other two figures would be Moses and Elias.

The little niche over the altar contains a twelfth or thirteenth century mosaic of the Virgin and Child, a later interpolation having no connection with the rest of the work. On the right wall there are three saints, James, John and Andrew, and below, Christ between two other saints, probably Zeno and Valentinian; on the opposite wall are three female saints (129), Praxed, Pudentia and Agnes. In the small lunette below is the Lamb on the Mount with the Four Rivers and four stags. The wall opposite the altar shows St. Peter and St. Paul at either side of the jewelled throne. When one becomes used to the dim light, the strongest impression is the wonderful, dull glow produced by the free and varied arrangement

THE

ROMAN

SCHOOL

OF THE

NINTH

CENTURY

149

of the tessere. Both figures and background seem fused together into a gorgeous fabric. This is emphasized by the very irregular wall surfaces and the rounded edges of the vault and the lunettes. There is a soft, almost powdery quality like a butterfly's wing of colossal scale, a strange and beautiful texture quite equal to anything ever achieved in

paint. Another of Pascal I's productions is the apse of Santa Maria in Domnica (130), or “della Navicella," on the Colian which was provided with a mosaic when he reconstructed the ancient basilica. On the arch above, Christ is represented in a mandorla, seated on a rainbow. On either side is an angel heading a procession of six Apostles. There is a

good deal of rhythm in these fourteen almost identical figures with the repeated notes of the flying draperies. They stand out against the blue of the sky, and at their feet is a green meadow with red and white flowers. Lower down, in each spandrel, is the figure of a Prophet, either Isaiah and Jeremiah, or Moses and Elias. In the apse itself, we have the Virgin and Child enthroned, surrounded by groups of angels, and Pascal I, who is shown with a square nimbus, holding the Virgin’s foot. This composition, which shows the Virgin alone and surrounded by a choir of angels, foreshadows the type developed by the Trecento, by Duccio and the Sienese, and the early Florentines. The figures are typical of the work of this period and do not call for especial comment, but as an ornamental scheme, this mosaic is one of the best, and there are splendid harmonies of color. Here the tones are not fused and graduated in the Byzantine manner of Santa Prassede but are more detached in the older Roman tradition. But we have the same broken-up surface reflecting a shimmering light. The numerous restorations are easily detected by their smooth hardness. There are wonderful harmonies of silvery grays, dark blues, yellows and veridian green. The

nimbi of the angels surrounding the Madonna in the apse are a veridian green edged with white, and not blue, as usually described.

I50

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

The inscription below is similar to the others of the period and states in quite pagan fashion that the glory of this work “shines like that of Phoebus in the universe when he frees himself from the dark veils of the obscure night."

In the church of Santa Cecilia we find the third of Pope Pascal's apses (131). This mosaic is almost identical with the one in Santa Prassede and belongs to the group which is derived from SS. Cosma e Damiano. Christ, larger than the other figures, holds the volumen and blesses with His right hand. Above His head is the Hand of God holding a wreath. At the right are St. Peter, St. Valerian, and St. Agnes; at the left, St. Paul, St. Cecilia, and Pascal I who holds a model of the church. The usual palm trees close the composition. Below, is the band of the Lamb on the Mount with the Twelve Sheep issuing from Bethlehem and Jerusalem, and the inscription extolling the work of the pope. The floral

border contains, just above the head of Christ, the monogram of Pascal. The mosaics of the arch disappeared during the restorations of the early eighteenth century but the subjects are known from the engravings

of Ciampini;’” the Virgin and Child on a throne with female saints, and the Twenty-Four Elders below. This apse shows the peculiarities of the apse of Santa Prassede in

a more exaggerated form. The head of Christ is unusually large with emaciated cheeks and enormous, staring eyes. All of the other figures are elongated, rigid, lifeless, with expressionless faces; but their rather weird and uncanny character is not without fascination from a modern point of view and they have a good deal of decorative value. The same may be said for the amusing procession of lambs below. In the past these mosaics have been sufficiently criticized for their bad qualities. Stranger and more decadent works are produced and admired every day. No one will dispute, I think, the value of this work as mere design and color. The color here is more vivid, and, perhaps, more barbaric than in Santa Prassede. The yellows of the robes of St. Cecilia and St. Agnes

give a striking and individual note.

THE

ROMAN

SCHOOL

OF THE

NINTH

CENTURY

ISI

Before leaving Santa Cecilia we may notice the bit of frieze on the loggia of the atrium, gold scrolls with lilies and leaves on a dark blue ground, and little medallions with crosses and busts. The “L” in the decoration may refer to Leo III, and if so, the mosaic was probably executed under him. The last of the mosaics of this school is in the apse of San Marco (132) and was produced under Gregory IV, 827-844. The composition is similar to that of the earlier apses; Christ in the center, with St. Mark the Pope, St. Agapetus and St. Agnes on the right, and, on the left St. Felicissimus, St. Mark the Evangelist and Gregory IV. In place of the two palm trees at the extremities there are two flowering plants. The figures are even stiffer and more lifeless than those of the earlier apses and they are less well adapted to the space. The curious idea of placing

them on plinths was perhaps derived from Byzantine ivories and it accentuates their already complete divorce from reality, giving them the

effect of equally spaced icons with their names inscribed on the bases below. This custom of placing the figures upon a base was followed later in the twelfth-century apses of Trieste, Torcello, and SS. Maria e Donato at Murano. Christ holds an open book with the words: EGO

SVM LVX EGO

SVM

VITA EGO

SVM

RE SVRRECTIO.

“I am

Light, I am Life, I am the Resurrection." The scheme is completed by the usual subject of the Lamb on the Mount and the Twelve Sheep issuing from Bethlehem and Jerusalem,

and, below, is the inscription of gold letters on a blue ground, a dedication of Gregory IV to St. Mark asking his intercession with God in return for the temple which he has erected to him.

VASTA THOLI PRIMO SISTVNT FVNDAMINE PVLCHRA QUAE SALOMONIACO FVLGENT SVB SIDERE RITV HAEC TIBI PROQVE TVO PERFECIT PRAESVL HONORE GREGORIVS MARCE EXIMIO CVI NOMINE QVARTVS TV QVOQVE POSCE DEVM VIVENDI TEMPORA LONGA DONET ET AD CAELI POST FVNVS SIDERA DVCAT

152

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

G-B. de Rossi called this “the most barbarous of Roman mosaics” and this opinion has been followed more or less ever since. Here again, however, recent criticism tends to reverse this judgment and finds great decorative value and even zsthetic appeal in this highly formalized scheme. The very frankness of treating the figures as isolated images has something to recommend it. The color here strikes a new note in which browns and whites predominate, varied by yellows and greens, and instead of being gloomy and lifeless it is often impressive. In certain lights there is a deep, rich lustre suggesting the patina of old bronze. Also, there is apparently less restoration here than in most of the other Roman apses. We also have the greater part of the composition of the arch. In the center is a medallion with the bust of Christ and at either side are the symbols of the Evangelists in medallions. Below, are St. Peter and St. Paul. The style here seems a little less hard than that of the apse, but there is no reason to suppose that this work is earlier. It has all the characteristics of the ninth century. The mosaic of San Marco is the last expression of this school. For more than two hundred and fifty years, until the time of Pascal II, 1099-1118, there are no extant mosaics in Rome. In France there is an interesting reflection of the Roman school in

the little church of Germigny-des-Prés * (133), south of Orleans, near the great abbey of St. Benoit. When Charlemagne was embellishing his palace at Aix-la-Chapelle with the mosaics of Ravenna, Théodulfe, abbot of Fleury-sur-Loire and bishop of Orleans, was a great admirer of the work and sang its praises in verse. He it was who adorned this church with mosaics and stucco, but all that now remains is the apse and a few minor fragments. Much was destroyed by fire as early as the ninth

century and successive restorations have removed the rest.

Even the

apse itself underwent several unfortunate restorations during the nineteenth century, but enough remains of the old work to determine its

character.

THE

ROMAN

SCHOOL

OF THE

NINTH

CENTURY

153

The subject is unusual, the Ark of the Covenant between two Archangels. 'The ark conforms almost exactly to the description in Exodus, 25, 11-20, even to the two golden Cherubim on the top. The two Archangels lean over the ark in identical attitudes. Between them

is the blue sky studded with stars and the Hand of God may be distinguished above. "Regard the holy of the ark of God, the master of the to thy vows."

The inscription of silver letters on blue is as follows: oracle and the Cherubim, contemplate the splendor and, at this sight, be advised to touch by thy prayers thunder, and join, I pray thee, the name of Théodulfe

The Latin reads:

ORACLVM SCM ET CERVBIN ASPICE SPETANS ET TESTAMENTI EN MICAT ARCA DEI HAEC CERNENS PRECIBVSQVE STVDENS PVLSARE TONANTEM THEODVLFUM VOTIS IVNGITO QVOESO TVIS In style, this mosaic is nearer to the Roman school than to Ravenna but it is inferior, both in composition and in technique. The composition is dull and uninteresting in its rigid symmetry, and the Archangels are not well adapted to the space. The best of the color is in the robes of the Archangels where there is a harmonious combination of silver and gold, blue, red, and green.

This is the only mosaic existing in France but chroniclers mention others as early as the fifth century. Gregory of Tours used them in the church of St. Martin, and the church of La Dourade at Tours still testifies by its name to the splendor of the mosaics there. Others of the seventh century are mentioned at Autun, Auxerre and elsewhere, and there were many more, but this art was always foreign to the French traditions and never gained a real foot-hold. We would not expect those who produced the marvellous colored glass of the Gothic period to have a great interest in this medium. In fact, after the Romanesque period

it is not a type of decoration at all suited to their architecture.’ We have already mentioned Charlemagne's great interest in mosaics.

I54

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Nothing, of course, remains of the work in his palace at Aix-la-Chapelle, but in the dome of the Cathedral we have what purports to be a modern copy of the original mosaic. The only idea we can form of this great cupola—the vision of St. John—is the mediocre and probably inaccurate design of Ciampini (134). The actual mosaic was executed after 1881, and although it pretends to copy the style of the early centuries it is hard and mechanical, with all the faults of the period. In the center is Christ on a gold ground with the Twenty-Four Elders below. On the walls are the Twelve Apostles, the Archangels, Michael and Gabriel, Mary, John the Baptist, Charlemagne and Pope Leo III. It is thought

that the original was executed largely by native workmen with material brought from Ravenna.

THE

ELEVENTH NEAR

CENTURY EAST

IN

THE

Tur

ErirveNTH

CENTURY

IN THE

Near East

The great revival in Byzantine art and the impetus given to mosaics.—The new style and its iconography defined.—Constantinople: the New Church of Basil I. and the Church of the Holy Apostles.—Cyprus: the Panagia Angelokistos, the Panagia Kana-

karia.—Tbe Lunette of Leo VI in St. Sophia.—Hosios Lucas in Phocis.—Kiev: St. Sophia and St. Michael—Nicea: the Church of the Dormition—Salonika: St. Sophia.—Chios: Nea Moni — Macedonia: Seres—Vatopedi; the Catholicon.—Grottaferrata.— Daphni.—Bethlehem: the Church of the Nativity.—Jerusalem: the “Dome of the Rock” and the Mosque of El-Aksa—Byzantine miniature, or portative mosaics.

IX.

THE

ELEVENTH NEAR

CENTURY

IN

THE

EAST

With the tenth and eleventh centuries we come to the second great period of mosaics, comparable to the work at Ravenna of the sixth and seventh centuries. During this so-called Second Golden Age of Byzantine art the empire was the seat of the most brilliant civilization of the Middle Ages. The new strength of the government under the Macedonian emperors with its increased wealth and luxury gave great impetus to the arts, and the capital became once more a radiating center whose products were the envy of Europe and the Near East. Through her ivories, her miniatures, her enamels, her stuffs, Byzantium became, in

a way, the great teacher of Europe, and her prestige continued unabated until the thirteenth century and the time of the Fourth Crusade.

Mosaics with their possibilities of rich and splendid effects were never more in favor than during this period and their fame caused Byzantine artisans to be called to the churches of Kiev in South Russia, to St. Mark's at Venice, and to the Norman kingdom of Sicily. Unfortunately, the mosaics of Constantinople itself, done at this time, have

nearly all perished, but those in Greece at Hosios Lucas in Phocis and at Daphni, those of Nicza and of Kiev, are great cycles still in fairly good preservation, showing the development of the style, and the final phase may be seen at St. Mark's and in the churches of Palermo. The school of mosaicists in the capital itself must have been tremendously flourishing to have enabled so many workmen and artists to spread out to Russia, Sicily, Venice and elsewhere. We may say that

until the time of the Fourth Crusade the Byzantine style dominated the art of mosaic, except, perhaps, with the exception of the more native school of Rome. At first glance these mosaics may not seem to be very different from

the earlier examples.

The technique remains much the same—cupolas,

158

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

vaults and the upper portions of the walls are covered with figures standing out on a plain gold ground—but if we study the composition themselves we will find that there has been a very radical change in icon-

ography.'

Each scene has now a dogmatic and liturgical significance

inspired by the theologians, its treatment tends to become fixed as well as its special position in the church. The order of the compositions is no longer chronological, as in the Biblical scenes of Sant’Apollinare at Ravenna; each scene plays a definite symbolic röle in the conception that the Church, according to the words of an eighth century theologian, ‘is Heaven on earth, the place in which God lives and dies."

In the cupolas, is Heaven,

where

Christ, no longer the tender

savior of mankind, but the Pantocrator, or judge and ruler of the world, is represented, guarded by Archangels. Below, are often the Prophets

or Apostles bearing witness to the All-Powerful and announcing the coming of His reign. The Virgin occupies the apse of the sanctuary, sometimes as an orant symbolizing the Church in prayer, as at Torcello, but more often seated and holding the Child. Usually on the vault before the sanctuary is the symbolic throne of the Last Judgment, the Hetimasia, and in the sanctuary itself the subjects relate to the mystery of the Eucharist, the celebration of the mass, predecessors and figures of Christ, Abraham, Aaron, Melchisedec. Also, the great doctors of the early Church, and bishops and deacons to reinforce and illustrate the celebration of the divine mystery. We are far from the time when profane subjects, such as the emperor Justinian and his court, find a place almost in the very sanctuary as they do at San Vitale. In the body of the church—the nave, the aisles, the narthex—we have the terrestrial Church. Here are the saints, their positions fixed according to an exact hierarchy determined by their importance, and above all, the Twelve Great Feasts of the Church as an expression of dogma—the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Presentation, the Baptism, the Raising of Lazarus, the Transfiguration, the Entry into Jerusalem, the Crucifixion, the Descent into Hell, or Anastasis, the Ascension, the

THE

ELEVENTH

CENTURY

IN THE

NEAR

Pentecost, the Death, or Dormition of the Virgin.

EAST

159

Two of these scenes,

the Crucifixion and the Descent into Hell, were given a special importance as symbolizing the mystic signification of the Church. The iconographical treatment of a number of the subjects was fixed as early as

the fifth or sixth century, but others, such as the Descent into Hell and the Dormition, seem to have been evolved at this time. Other accessory scenes sometimes accompany

the Twelve

Feasts,

as at Hosios Lucas and Daphni, where the Washing of the Feet and the Incredulity of Thomas are shown with the Crucifixion and the Descent

into Hell. The west wall was reserved for the Last Judgment, a vast composition which receives its final development during this period. Torcello and the Baptistery of Florence have the only extant examples of this subject in mosaic. A cycle which takes on an extraordinary importance at this time

is the life of the Virgin, drawn from the Apocrypha. We find it at Kiev and at Daphni, and in its most beautiful and final development in the much later mosaics of the Kahrie Djami. The Old Testament cycle which was so important in the fifth and the sixth centuries tends to dis-

appear in the East, but we find it in the West in the narthex of St. Mark's, the Cappella Palatina, and Monreale.

Although, as we have seen, the whole scheme was more or less rigidly fixed according to the liturgy and the dogmas handed down by the theologians, there were, nevertheless, many minor variations in the

treatment; but in general, all the important mosaics from St. Luke to St. Mark's and the Sicilian churches were planned on these general principles. The researches of Diehl, Millet, Heisenburg and others have shown that this new iconographic system must have been pretty well established by the ninth or the tenth centuries. The lost mosaics of the New Church and of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople, executed under Basil I, 867-886, probably followed the new arrangement, if we

160

A HISTORY

interpret

correctly

the

OF MOSAICS

contemporary

accounts

of

Constantine

the

Rhodian and Mesarites.!* Perhaps there has never been a time when the artist has been so controlled from without as he was during this period and throughout

the subsequent history of Byzantine art, although we must say that from the tenth to the twelfth centuries at least, the rules were not so fixed

and stereotyped as to become empty formule tending to deaden real artistic expression. They rather guided and directed the whole scheme and within their limits the artist was free to exercise his best abilities in composition, in the balancing and massing of color and the treatment of form. It has been said that the figures tend to become monotonous and stereotyped and totally lacking in individuality, and although this

is in part true, especially for the later work at St. Mark's and at Monreale, it is by no means true for the period as a whole. In the Crucifixion, the Dormition, and other work at Daphni the human figure is treated with great beauty, even in the nude, and there is a grace of line and a subtlety

and variety in the drapery which is comparable to the art of classic Greece or the painting of the early Renaissance. Before taking up typical examples of the eleventh and the twelfth

centuries we may mention here two mosaics on the Island of Cyprus !* which are rather difficult to place. One is in the apse of the church of the Panagia Angelokistos at Kiti on the southern coast of the island, near Larnaca, and the other is in the church of the Panagia Kanakaria,

near the village of Lithrankomé, on the southern slope of the ridge forming the backbone

of the Karpass.

Both

mosaics

are

in very

poor

condition. The Panagia Angelokistos shows a standing Virgin and Child, the so-called Hodegetria type, with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel at either side holding orbs and sceptres. All the figures have nimbi which

are very dark in the center and are framed in bands of a dark and a light blue. The Virgin stands on a plinth and wears a tunic and a dark mantle. The Archangels have peacock’s wings with “eyes”—a kind of wing

THE

ELEVENTH

CENTURY

IN THE

NEAR

EAST

161

which is seen in representations of Seraphim, but uncommon elsewhere, the only other instance being in the Sinai mosaics. The figures have Greek inscriptions and the Virgin is called “Saint Mary" instead of the usual Theotokos or “Mother of God,” which has influenced some in giving the mosaic an early date.

The apse of the Panagia Kanakaria recalls such compositions as the apses of San Vitale or Parenzo. Here we have the Virgin represented as Queen of Heaven, seated on a throne between two angels, and sur-

rounded by an oval mandorla, or glory, of dark blue, between two palm trees. The Virgin wears a purple tunic and a blue mantle, and the Child, a blue tunic, a white mantle, and a golden cruciferous nimbus. The whole is enclosed in a border containing a series of medallions of the Twelve Apostles, in ruinous condition, which may be compared with the medallions in Ravenna on the arch of San Vitale, in the chapel of the Archiepiscopal Palace, and others. Smirnoff and Dalton have dated these mosaics as early as the fifth or the sixth centuries, and Schmidt would put them in the ninth century. The Arabs occupied Cyprus from 650 to 964, and the architecture of the two churches is later than the Arab invasion. It seems impossible to date the mosaics before the Arab conquest and certain analogies with early work at Ravenna and Salonika may be explained by conservatism or the fact that they are provincial. Moreover, the technique, as far as one can judge from the illustrations, seems to differ considerably from that of the early period, especially in the transition from the light to the dark shades. The compositions seem to show more relationship to later eleventh or twelfth century work, such as the apses of Nicza or San Giusto at Trieste, so that it seems probable that these mosaics are even later than Smirnoff would place them, at least as late as the eleventh century.

Fortunately we have now one important work in Constantinople itself to illustrate this period, the recently uncovered lunette over the

162

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Royal Door in the narthex of St. Sophia (135). It dates from the time of Leo VI, 886-912, and is therefore, only a few years later than the

lost work of Basil I in the church of the Holy Apostles. In the center is Christ seated upon a lyre-backed throne richly studded with jewels. He has a cruciferous nimbus and wears the tunic and mantle. In His left hand He holds a book with the inscription in Greek: “Peace be with you. I am the Light of the World”, and He

blesses with His right hand.

At His feet is the prostrate figure of an

emperor with a nimbus who can be recognized from coins as Leo VI. Above, on either side of Christ are medallions, the one on the right containing the head of the Virgin, and that on the left, an Archangel.

These may represent the Mother of God and the Archangel Gabriel, the personages of the Annunciation, or, perhaps, the three figures are attributes of Divine Wisdom (Hagia Sophia); Faith (Christ Enthroned),

Hope

(Angel of the Annunciation), and Charity

(the Virgin).

The

background is in three bands; the lowest, green to symbolize the earth, the second blue, for the sky, and the top-most and by far the largest, ' gold, for the celestial firmament. The cubes of the gold background are set closely together in wavy horizontal lines with the width of a tessera left between each line. This gives a striking difference in texture between

the background and the figures themselves. The figure of Christ and the heads of the medallions are of great majesty and beauty and altogether worthy of a sumptuous imperial art at its fountain head. The lyre-backed throne is found on coins of the

period, in Byzantine miniatures, and in later Italian mosaics and frescoes, becoming a common feature in twelfth century art. Within the past year Whittemore has uncovered the splendid lunette

over the South Portal (136) representing the Virgin and Child enthroned between the Emperor Constantine who offers the City of Constantinople and the Emperor Justinian who offers the Church. The majesty of the composition, the striking portraiture, and the sumptuous detail reveal

THE

ELEVENTH

CENTURY

IN THE

NEAR

EAST

163

Byzantine art of the Golden Age at its height. The work probably dates from the end of the tenth century, ordered by Nicephorus Phocas, 963969, or John Zimisces, 969-975. So itself of for the Greece,

far these are the only extant examples we have in Constantinople the great mosaic art of the Macedonians and the Comnenes and present we must rely upon the more or less provincial works of South Russia and Italy to complete our knowledge of the period.

This Byzantine style was particularly well suited to the various types of cruciform-domed or single-domed churches which achieved their greatest development during this period. The unification of the interior on a centralized plan culminating in the dome, gave each subject por-

trayed its own architectural enframement and permitted it to be subordinated, if necessary, to other subjects of greater significance. Thus the architecture and decoration are interrelated and complementary to

each other. The number of comparatively small and curving wall surfaces, with constantly varied perspectives, provide an ever-changing reflection of light which is the very essence of mosaic. We shall see that when this style is carried into Sicily and used in churches of basilican plan, such as the Cappella Palatina or Monreale, the long, flat expanses of the nave walls present a much greater difficulty. The multitude of narrative scenes, especially in Monreale, separated only by ornamental

borders, tend to become confused and give an over-crowded effect with a complete absence of rhythm in the design, and it is only in the apses that the happiest results are obtained. The larger of the two churches of the monastery of Hosios Lucas

in Phocis,’” dedicated to St. Luke, is one of the most interesting examples of the later Byzantine style, and still contains nearly the whole of its interior decoration intact, including the magnificent pavement of porphyry and jasper, the marble covering of the walls, and, above all, the mosaics. It is a fine example of the systematized and schematic treatment of the period, and the mosaics are probably the earliest extant which

164

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

follow the iconographic rules we have already described. The monastery was founded in the second half of the tenth century by the emperor Romanos II, d. 963, and the mosaics probably date from the first half of the eleventh century.

In the center of the cupola is the Pantocrator (137)—surrounded by Archangels, St. John the Baptist, and the Virgin. Unfortunately this is largely a restoration in paint of about the seventeenth century. A lower zone of sixteen Prophets was still seen by Didron in 1839 but this has now almost entirely disappeared. In the apse the Madonna (138) is seated upon a throne, holding the Child, clad in a golden tunic, and in the small dome over the sanctuary there is a representation of the Pentecost (139), the Apostles receiving the spirit of the Holy Ghost, which is here symbolized by the Dove placed on the throne of the Hetimasia. In the pendentives are men in variegated costumes representing the Tribes and Languages. On the sides of the bema are shown the great doctors of the Church, and in the

little lateral apse at the left are the two Biblical episodes of Daniel and the Lions and the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace. On the walls, vaults and pendentives of the Church are Gospel scenes corresponding to the great ecclesiastical Feasts, and an array of saints and martyrs arranged in order of their importance; at the west, monks and ascetics and martyrs; near the altar, bishops and deacons; in the arms of the cross, warrior saints in attendance on the Christ of the dome above. On the whole, the figures of saints are treated with a certain monotony but a few stand out in striking contrast with the individuality of portraits, especially the young St. Luke the Gourniot.

Four of the great Feasts were placed in the squinches below the dome; the Annunciation (destroyed), the Nativity, the Presentation, and the Baptism; and they are continued in the narthex by the Crucifixion and the Anastasis, with the Washing of the Feet and the Incredulity of Thomas in the lateral apses. One of the finest of the surviving mosaics is the Pantocrator over the central door of the narthex.

THE

ELEVENTH

CENTURY

IN THE

NEAR

This ensemble is rather uneven in quality.

EAST

165

There is a certain

monotony in the types combined with stiffness and awkward gestures;

but here and there, are figures of real beauty and nobility which foreshadow the work at Daphni. The color, also, is brilliant and harmonious, and the whole scheme is tied together by the warm gold of the backgrounds. Diehl justly compares famous Menology of Basi] two opposed traditions, the antique, with its striving

these mosaics with the miniatures from the II in the Vatican. In both we find the same monastic, with its stiff ascetic saints, and the for nobility of gesture and elegance in the

draperies, shown particularly in the Gospel scenes. Thus, we have here in this ensemble the work of at least two different schools. We should guard against considering the great series of saints as necessarily a less

well realized and more primitive aspect of the Byzantine

evolution.

There has always been a tendency to consider them as an earlier phase

of the development which produced the work at Daphni.

However, as

Diez has pointed out, they represent, rather, another school, that of the purely religious, hieratic art of the monasteries whose roots go back to the earliest traditions of the East. The subjects and figures depicted are conceived solely as symbols of profound religious beliefs and dogmas, and the historical and narrative element is entirely subordinated. Much that may seem stiff, or crude, or over-austere is not the result of archaism or imperfectly understood anatomy, but, as in the case of the Roman mosaics of the ninth century, the expression of a different viewpoint in which spiritual significance is paramount, even though, from the very nature of things, it may be only partially successful. Daphni, on the other hand, represents the other tradition which contends for supremacy

at this time, that of the imperial court with its sympathy for Hellenic traditions of grace, beauty, and greater naturalism. With the conversion of Vladimir, prince of Kiev, in 989, South Russia came under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church and the

influence of the Byzantine civilization."*

Jaroslav, 1015-1054, the son

166

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

of Vladimir, wished to make his capital the rival of Constantinople, and

filled the city with churches, monasteries and palaces.

The church of

St. Sophia with its mosaics dates from his time.

St. Sophia’ bears no resemblance to its namesake in Constantinople, as it is of rather small dimensions with eight small aisles parallel to the nave;

but the mosaics are purely Byzantine.

They have been much

damaged by fire and pillage; for a long time they were covered with whitewash and only a part of them were rediscovered in 1885. They have also suffered to some extent from restorations, but in spite of this they are still splendid examples of eleventh-century Byzantine art.

In the dome Christ was represented as the Pantocrator (140), surrounded by angels and the Twelve Apostles, with the Four Evangelists in the pendentives.

At present, the figure of Christ remains, one of the

Arcbangels, and the upper portion of the figure of St. Paul. On the inner surface of the triumphal arch is Aaron in high-priest's robes, carrying a censor. On the two piers of the triumphal arch are the Angel and Virgin of

the Annunciation, and in the lower zone of the bema are standing figures of saints with admirably executed portrait-like heads. Above the is the scene of the Communion of the Apostles (141), and in the part of the apse is a colossal standing figure of the Virgin as an draped in purple and wearing the red shoes denoting royal rank, sonification of the Church on Earth for which she intercedes.

saints upper orant, a per-

In the four arches beneath the dome there were originally forty medallion busts of martyrs, but of these only fifteen now remain. There are three medallions at the top of the triumphal arch containing the three

persons of the Deesis.

There are also, above the eastern and western

arches of the dome, the remains of figures of Christ Emmanuel with a scroll and of the Virgin. Of the Four Evangelists once in the pendentives,

only St. Mark remains; he is seated before his desk, writing his Gospel.

THE

ELEVENTH

CENTURY

IN THE

NEAR

EAST

167

Other episodes of the Passion which once adorned the north and south arms of the cross have also disappeared. In the monastery church of St. Michael at Kiev there are a few mosaics of which the Communion of the Apostles is the most important.

It has been thought that this work was probably later than St. Sophia and that it was largely executed by native workmen, but it follows closely Byzantine models and Ainaloff has shown that a group of Byzantine

craftsmen from the monastery of the Blachernae came to Kiev in 1073, and

among

other

buildings,

were

responsible

for the

monastery

of

Michael. An earlier group from this famous monastery of the capital may have executed the work in Santa Sophia. The mosaics of Hosios Lucas and Kiev are in the same tradition and point to a common center which may well have been the Church of the Blachernae.

In style, the mosaics of St. Sophia stand midway between Hosios Lucas and Daphni. They show some of the stiffness and awkwardness of the earlier work combined with an admirable sense of portraiture and a fine use of color. Practically nothing remains in the little church of the Dormition at Nicza (Iznik), **° the old metropolis of Bithynia, now in a very ruinous condition.

In the apse was a standing Madonna (142), holding the Child

who blessed with His right hand and held a scroll in His left. The Child is represented as if seated on the Madonna's lap, although she is standing, an anomaly which has never been satisfactorily explained, as there were

no indications in the mosaic that the Madonna was originally shown as a seated figure. Above the head of the Virgin was the Hand of God from which three rays issued, and she was standing upon a plinth, reminding one of the Virgins in the apses of Torcello and Santa Maria e Donato at Murano and the Christ of the apse of San Giusto at Trieste, all probably of the twelfth century. In fact, the composition of this apse was

very similar to that of the great apse at Torcello. This apse originally contained a cross in place of the Virgin and

168

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Child, probably similar to the one in St. Irene at Constantinople and to

the one which once existed in St. Sophia at Salonika. A medallion on the vault in front of the apse contained the Hetimasia, with the cushioned throne, the Book, and above, the dove with a nimbus of seven rays. The Hetimasia occupied the same position as at Daphni, the Cappella Palatina and elsewhere—a typical Byzantine ar-

rangement from the eleventh century on.

The Hetimasia was flanked

by two pairs of Archangels (143), each holding a labarum and a globe

and clad in richly jewelled robes according to the later Byzantine formula. These Archangels may be compared with those at Torcello and Trieste. The style of these mosaics would date them from about the middle

of the eleventh century, but it has been sometimes supposed that they were earlier, perhaps contemporary with the building of the church at

the beginning of the ninth century.!!! The mosaics of the narthex, a little inferior in quality to these last, were certainly of the eleventh century. In the low dome was a gold cross of eight branches inscribed in a medallion with a border. Between each arm of the cross were two stars. Surrounding this medallion were four medallion busts of Christ, the Baptist, St. Joachim, and St. Anna. In the pendentives were the Four Evangelists seated before their desks,

figures conceived with great dignity and comparable to the work at Hosios Lucas or Daphni. Above the tympanum of the door, was a halffigure of the Virgin as an orant (144), draped in a violet mantle bordered with gold. This beautiful figure bore a striking resemblance to the

Madonna in the apse of Torcello, and was of a much finer execution than the decoration of the dome. The decorative motifs in the borders of the Nicza mosaics are typical of the eleventh century and later, and have analogies with those at Hosios Lucas, Trieste, and Torcello. We have already mentioned the panel in St. Demetrius at Salonika representing the Virgin and a saint in connection with the earlier work

THE

ELEVENTH

CENTURY

IN THE

NEAR

EAST

169

there. It is probably of this period, at least not later than the eleventh century.

The Ascension in the dome of St. Sophia at Salonika *” (145) probably dates from about this period; that is, the middle of the eleventh century. In the center is the Pantocrator seated on a rainbow in a medallion upheld by two angels. Below, is the Virgin as an orant, flanked by two angels and accompanied by the Twelve Apostles; the figures are separated by trees. This is a skillfully arranged composition. The figures of the Virgin and the Apostles are well handled, showing a good knowledge of anatomy, and some variety of movement, and they

are cleverly designed to appear correctly proportioned when viewed from below. The color-scheme is rather subdued; the violet robe of the Madonna alone standing out from the grayish-white draperies of the rest of the figures. As we have already observed elsewhere, the style of the central medallion is in marked contrast to the lower band and it is probably part cf an older composition dating from as early as the ninth century. It does not seem possible that it can be contemporary with the rest of the mosaic. The lower band, however, with its emphasis on movement, and its striking resemblance to the same scene of the Ascension in one of the domes of St. Mark's, is undoubtedly of the eleventh century.

The extensive decoration of the Nea Moni !' on the island of Chios would have borne comparison with Hosios Lucas or Daphni had it not suffered such severe damage. This monastery church was built by Constantine IX Monomachus, 1042-1054, and like Hosios Lucas and Kiev it is a reflection of the art of Constantinople of the eleventh century. The earthquake of 1881 destroyed practically the whole of the dome as well as injuring the rest of the mosaics. The dome showed the Pantocrator surrounded by nine angels, and, at a lower level, the Twelve Apostles— a typical eleventh-century conception. Turning to the surviving mosaics, we have in the main apse a stand-

170

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

ing figure of the Virgin as an orant, and in the two smaller lateral apses, busts of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel. Of the eight scenes of the life of Christ in the church, seven are still fairly well preserved: The

Annunciation, Presentation in the Temple, Baptism (146), Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Deposition, and Anastasis (147); the Nativity having been lost. In the narthex there are other scenes from the life of Christ which are in rather bad condition: the Raising of Lazarus, the Washing

of Peter's Feet, the Ascension, the Pentecost, and another scene which may represent Christ Preaching. There are also several isolated figures in the narthex. Above the entrance are the remains of a colossal bust

of Christ, and in a little cupola in front of this door, there is a Virgin as an orant in a medallion, surrounded by eight warrior saints.

Finally,

on the west wall are the Prophets Daniel and Isaiah and busts of other saints. These mosaics show an advance even over those of Kiev in richness and variety of color and a certain ease and grace, both in composition and in the rendering of the human form. Before turning to the culmination of this school at Daphni, there

are a few other examples to consider, all in a more or less fragmentary state.

In the Metropolitan Church of Seres !!* in Macedonia there is a Communion of the Apostles (148) represented in the lower part of the apse, as at St. Sophia, Kiev. This mosaic suffered greatly from a fire in 1849 and has been badly restored in paint. As usual in this subject, Christ is portrayed twice, standing beneath a ciborium, and giving bread and wine to the two groups of Apostles who approach from the right and left. The artist has taken great pains to give variety to the figures, in movement, in the treatment of the drapery, and in the facial types. On the whole it compares favorably with the best work of the period and

should probably be dated towards the end of the eleventh century. The monasteries of Mount Athos once had a considerable number

THE

ELEVENTH

CENTURY

IN THE

NEAR

of mosaics but these have almost entirely perished. seen at Vatopedi and at Xenopbon.

EAST

171

A few are still to be

In the tympanum of the royal door of the Catholicon at Vatopedi !* there is the usual Byzantine representation of the Deesis—Christ enthroned between the Virgin and St. John the Baptist—and on either side

of the door are the Virgin and the Angel Gabriel representing an Annunciation, while the same subject is again shown upon spandrels in the interior. There is also a damaged figure of St. Nicholas in the tympanum of one of the lateral doors leading to the first inner narthex.

The Deesis and the Annunciation are usually considered to be of the end of the eleventh century, but they are inferior in quality to most of the other work of the period. The fragments of other mosaics are

probably later. The mosaics in the new Catholicon of Xenophon were originally in the old church. There are two panels, one of St. George, and the other, of St. Demetrius, the figures standing out on a gold ground. "These are

typically good works of the period of Daphni, or a little later. We will now leave the Near East for the moment to consider two mosaics in the Basilian abbey of Grottaferrata near Rome,"* which clearly belong to this school. The abbey was founded by St. Nilus the Younger at the beginning of the eleventh century, and, as might be expected in a community of Greek monks, although so near Rome, the work shows a purely Byzantine inspiration. Over the triumphal arch, consecrated in 1025, there is a Pentecost

(149) showing two equal groups of the Apostles enthroned

with the

rays of light descending upon their heads. This mosaic was probably executed in the eleventh century soon after the consecration of the church. The clear and brilliant color and the variety in the draperies, and the modelling are in the best Byzantine tradition. Above the entrance door is the Deesis, Christ enthroned between

172

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

the Virgin and St. John (150). Here, the workmanship is less good; the figures are elongated and stiff and the color opaque. This has led Venturi

and others to consider it later and probably by a native artist who did not understand his Byzantine models so well.

With Daphni !* (151-156) we reach the culmination of the school. It is only in a few places—the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, San Vitale, Parenzo, the Cappella Palatina—that we find as extensive and complete work of such high quality. As Millet has so well said: *Daphni is distinguished by a very pronounced superiority, by the variety, the suppleness, the elegance of design, the finesse of modelling, the richness of color, finally, in the compositions, by a veritable invention, both in gesture as well as in the interpretation of the theme and the disposition of the lines and masses. The real beauty of these mosaics is a surprising phenomenon." This little monastic church is charmingly situated near the old road which leads from Athens to Eleusis. It dates from the middle of the eleventh century and probably received its decoration soon afterwards. It was long neglected and numerous earthquakes have seriously damaged the mosaics. Restorations undertaken between 1889 and 1894, although necessary, were carried out with the archzological zeal characteristic of the last century, and have not improved tbe present appearance of the work. The isolated figures of saints have suffered less than the principal

scenes. The arrangement is that typical Byzantine scheme which we have

already seen at Hosios Lucas, at Kiev, and at Chios.

In the dome, is a

colossal bust of the Pantocrator (151), and below, in the spaces between the windows of the drum, stand sixteen Prophets. The Pantocrator, with a cruciferous nimbus, holding the Book and blessing with His right hand, is one of the great achievements of the art of this period. Seldom have latent energy and power been better expressed. The schematized and yet intensely vital countenance and the extraordinary hands are the work of a master. Its prototype was probably in the New Church of

THE

ELEVENTH

CENTURY

IN THE

NEAR

EAST

173

Basil I, and it leads in its turn to the great figures of the Sicilian apses. The splendid figures of the Prophets with their scrolls show the more classical Byzantine style at its best and point the way to the domes of St. Mark's at Venice. A brief summary of the rest of the work will have

to suffice here. The Hetimasia is represented in the vault of the sanctuary and in the two lateral niches are the Archangels Michael and Gabriel. In the apse itself there is a seated Virgin, now almost entirely destroyed. In the apses below the Hetimasia are personages relating to the

eucharistic cycle: Aaron and Zacharius, doctors of the church, bishops, deacons;

John the Baptist as the Prodromos, and shown with wings,

occupies the niche of the left absidiole. In the transepts north and south of the central dome are groups of martyrs commemorated in the Menelogia, and above the two side doors leading into the narthex are busts of St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, while the rest of the western portion of the church contains busts or standing figures of other saints.

The most essential part of the scheme is, however, the series of the great Feasts of the Church, occupying the transepts, the pendentives of the dome, and the narthex. In the church itself are: the Birth of the Virgin, the Salutation, the Adoration of the Magi, the Baptism, the Transfiguration (152), the Raising of Lazarus, the Entry into Jerusalem

(153), the Crucifixion (154), the Anastasis (155), the Incredulity of Thomas, and the Death of the Virgin. The Presentation in the Temple has been destroyed. The Crucifixion and the Anastasis are given positions of especial importance at either side of the choir, and the Death of

the Virgin is above the entrance door.

It is interesting to note that the

important subjects of the Ascension and the Pentecost are lacking, while

other episodes, not usually included in the cycle, are added, such as the Birth of the Virgin, the Adoration of the Magi and the Incredulity of Thomas.

174

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS In the narthex, in two distinct groups are: at the left, the Last

Supper, the Washing of Feet, and the Betrayal, all scenes relating to the

Passion; and, on the right, episodes from the life of the Virgin: the prayer of Joachim and Anna Priests, and the Presentation.

(156), the Blessing of the Virgin by the

All of this work, with the exception perhaps of a few secondary isolated figures, seems to show a common inspiration and dates from the same period. It is of a consistently high quality, and scenes such as the Crucifixion, the Anastasis, and the Death of the Virgin are among the great achievements of Byzantine art.

In the following chapters we shall trace the further developments of the Byzantine school in Venice, Torcello and Trieste, and in Sicily. In the Byzantine empire itself there are no surviving mosaics of importance until we reach those of the Kahrie Djami at Constantinople, dating from the early fourteenth century. There are a few other surviving mosaics in the Near East, to be more exact, in the Holy Land, executed by Byzantine masters, both for

the Saracen rulers and for the Crusaders during their occupation of Jerusalem.

The Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem *“ once had a complete and splendid series of mosaics, of which now only fragments remain.

The

greater part was still in existence at the close of the sixteenth century when it was described by Quaresimus. According to an inscription in the choir, the work was carried out by one Ephraim, probably in 1169, under the reign of King Amaury of Jerusalem, in the time of the emperor,

Manuel Comnenus. At the west end of the church was a vast representation of the Tree of Jesse, now entirely destroyed.

Above the architrave in the nave

were long rows of medallion busts of the ancestors of Christ, and above these, between conventionalized “tree” designs which seem to show a

Persian influence, were churches and tables with Greek inscriptions re-

THE

ELEVENTH

CENTURY

IN THE

NEAR

EAST

175

lating to the cecumenical and provincial Councils, subjects which strikingly recall the fifth-century mosaics of St. George at Salonika, or the Baptistery of the Orthodox. Still higher, between the windows, was a

procession of angels advancing towards the choir.

All that have survived

are seven of the Councils, three of them very incomplete; six angels, and

seven of the medallion busts. In the choir and the transepts were scenes from the Life of Christ, three of which are fairly well preserved; the Entry into Jerusalem, Incredulity of Thomas, and the Ascension, together with a fragment of the Transfiguration. There was a Nativity in the crypt which has now disappeared. It is possible that this decoration replaces a much earlier one, for

it would be strange if the church had not received mosaics in the interior at an early time, when those of the facade were already celebrated in

the sixth century.

Furthermore, the conventionalized architecture of

the Council scenes goes back to the fifth century.

However, in actual

technique and details the work seems to be of the twelfth century, and the iconography of the scenes from the life of Our Lord is typical of the Byzantine style of the later period.

De Vogüé pointed out very justly,

years ago, that the work has a certain political aspect which fits in very well with the times. The Councils and the other subjects illustrate a doctrine which was common to both the Greek and the Latin Churches,

and bear witness to the amicable relations existing towards the end of the twelfth century between the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and the

Eastern Empire. Much of the ornamental detail, as in the Dome of the Rock, is very Eastern in character, going back ultimately to Mesopotamian and Persian sources, and the color-scheme, with its prominent

use of green, is somewhat different from typical Byzantine work. There are mosaics in the Mosque of El-Aksa at Jerusalem which

date from a restoration under Saladin in 1187."°

In the dome is a diaper

pattern of conventional floral scrolls, and in the drum, conventionalized

“trees” inferior to those of Bethlehem or the Dome of the Rock.

Both

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

176

mother-of-pearl and silvered cubes are employed to render the high lights. At Damascus we have already noted the rather unimportant restorations and later work of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. There remains to be considered a branch of the art which seems to have developed in the Empire about the twelfth century and continued to be very popular for two hundred years—miniature, or portative

mosaics

(157-159).7*

"These mosaic pictures, usually small in scale,

were the objects of great veneration, and were exposed in the churches, in the oratories of the palaces, and carried about from one place to

another. The idea is a very old one, going back at least as far as the embleme of the Romans which were also sometimes carried about.

that Cesar took pavements with him upon his campaigns.

Suetonius says

Most of the

surviving Byzantine examples are of the thirteenth or fourteenth cen-

turies, but a few are earlier.

The art of mosaic does not lend itself

readily to work on such a small scale, as all its own special effects are derived from its size and the surrounding space. Here, the cubes employed are very minute; it is often difficult to detect their joining. They are placed upon a specially prepared ground of wax, and gold and silver

are used to bring out the high lights and details. Among the best of these miniature mosaics are the two panels of the Twelve Feasts of the Church

(157)

in the Opera del Duomo

at

Florence (thirteenth or early fourteenth century), the bust of Our Lord in the Bargello (158), the Transfiguration (159) and the circular medallion of St. George in the Louvre (thirteenth century), the St. Theodore in the Vatican (twelfth century), an Annunciation at South Kensington

(thirteenth century), the St. John the Baptist in the treasury of St. Mark's (thirteenth century), and a number which are still preserved in the monasteries Vatopedi.

of Mount

Athos,

especially the early Crucifixion

at

SICILIAN

MOSAICS

Sıcırıam

Moearcs

Saracenic and Byzantine influences under the Normans which produced the mosaics.—Cefali.—The Martorana.—The Cappella Palatina.—Secular decoration: La Zisa and tbe Camera di Rwggero.—Monreale, etc.— Messina: the Cathedral; San Gregorio.— Sicilian influence on the mainland: Salerno; Capua; Santa Restituta at Naples.

X.

SICILIAN

MOSAICS

The Sicilian mosaics of the twelfth century," on the whole, are the greatest surviving manifestation of the medieval Byzantine school.

Nowhere else is there so much of such a high quality.

It is also fortunate

that, in general, they have suffered much less from restoration than those

of Venice and elsewhere. An island in the center of the Mediterranean, Sicily has always been

the meeting-place of a variety of races—Phenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians

and

Spaniards.

Romans,

Byzantines

and

Arabs,

Normans,

French

and

When the Normans conquered the island in the eleventh

century, they were wise enough to build upon the Saracenic culture which had preceded them, and, for a century and a half, they made Palermo the most brilliant and cosmopolitan capital of Europe. "Their extreme toleration caused them to accept, as a rule, the best that was brought to them. Modified Gothic buildings were adorned with Byzantine and Saracenic splendor, the result being the most beautiful hybrid art which the Middle Ages produced; and the mosaics of Cefalü, the Martorana,

the Cappella Palatina and Monreale are the chief glory of this art. The great apse of the Cathedral of Cefalü (160) is dated 1148 by an inscription, and it was executed by Greek artists brought over by Roger II. High in the apse is a colossal bust of the Pantocrator blessing,

according to the usual scheme of Byzantine iconography, and placed here because of the absence of a dome.

Below is the Madonna as an orant,

flanked by four Archangels, and still lower, on either side of the window, are the Twelve Apostles arranged in two superimposed groups.

On the

lateral walls are figures of saints, bishops, deacons, warriors and Prophets in four parallel zones.

Greek inscriptions.

All of the secondary personages are provided with

The upper rows of these figures, as well as the

180

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Cherubim and Seraphim of the vault of the choir ( 161), are later in date than the apse, probably of about the middle of the thirteenth century. The great scale of the apse is magnificent. We feel that here is a composition that could not be treated as well in any other medium. The Christ is the best example of this Sicilian type of the Pantocrator, finer than the contemporary one in the Cappella Palatina, which is now largely a restoration, and much finer than the almost identical one in the apse of

Monreale.

Here an expression of great strength is combined with be-

nignity, and there is none of that hardness which we find in other Byzantine examples, even at Daphni, or at Hosios Lucas, and at Monreale. The other figures—the Virgin, the Apostles—are admirably conceived; there is grace and dignity in the poses, sufficient knowledge of anatomy, well-studied drapery, and a consummate knowledge of color. The upper rows of figures in the choir and the angels of the vault do not equal the work we have just described; they are much more weakly conceived, but, in the vault especially, they follow the best traditions of color. The peacock's wings of the Cherubim are in graded shades of blue resplendent with gold, the whites showing gradations of transparent

greens which finally reach the most intense blues, and there is a remarkable variety and richness in the tones.

The church of the Martorana,'” Ammiraglio, was embellished about

(162-167) or Santa Maria dell’ 1143 by the munificence of the

admiral, George of Antioch. It is a typical Byzantine edifice of Greek cross plan, with a marble covering on the wall and mosaics above. A considerable part of the mosaics is still preserved. In the center of the dome (163) is the Pantocrator blessing, surrounded by four Archangels, and lower, in the drum, are eight Prophets, with the Four Evangelists in the squinches completing the composition. In the soffits of the arches are medallions of warrior and bishop saints, and in the north and south arms of the cross, the Apostles. All that remains in the apse are the Archangels Michael and Gabriel,

SICILIAN

MOSAICS

181

and the majority of the Feasts of the Church have also disappeared. The Annunciation and the Presentation still exist on the walls of the central square, and, on the vault of the west arm of the cross are the Nativity (164) and the Dormition (165), these last two being, perhaps, the finest of the surviving mosaics. Finally, near the west end of the church are two mosaic pictures of great historic interest which were probably once on the facade. One portrays the founder, George of Antioch, at the feet of the Virgin bearing a scroll with an inscription in Greek containing a supplication on behalf of the admiral to Christ, who appears in the upper corner emerging from the heavens. The upper picture shows Christ

crowning King Roger II (166).

These two very interesting works have

been much marred by excessive repairing. The best of the work, however, such as the Nativity and the Dormition and certain individual figures of saints ( 167), is of the highest quality and may be compared with Daphni. In fact, perhaps these scenes give one a better idea of the technical perfection of the fully developed Byzantine style than do those of Daphni, as they are still in excellent condition. Repeated visits to Daphni only tend to confirm the impression of how much vitality those admirable works have lost through mechanical restoration. The exquisite blending of color in the Martorana

is only equalled at Cefalü and in the best of the mosaics of the Cappella Palatina. The Cappella Palatina "* (168-174) which was finished by Roger II, according to the Greek inscription at the base of the dome, is the most extraordinary monument of the art of the Normans in Sicily on account of its jewel-like perfection and its combination, on a small scale, of the diverse elements which went to make up this civilization. The nave and the aisles (168), divided by antique columns, are those of a Western basilica, the sanctuary with its dome on squinches is that of a Byzantine church, and the intricate interlacings of the pavement of porphyry, serpentine, and mosaics, and the stalactite ceiling with its

polychrome decoration are Saracenic.

182

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Some of the mosaics have disappeared and others have been renewed. Those on the west wall were changed in the fourteenth century by the Aragonese and nothing remains of the original work. Those of the principal apse and those of the apse on the left were renewed in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, and, finally, in 1798, some of the mosaics which covered the north wall of the sanctuary were destroyed. However, we are fortunate in having the greater part of the old work intact, and these brilliant pictures on a gold ground, together with the

rich marble facing of the lower part of the walls, and the stalactite ceiling with its painted figures, animals and monsters, produce an impression of extraordinary splendor. The mosaics of the choir and sanctuary, and, in part, those of the nave are purely Byzantine with Greek inscriptions, and are of the time of Roger II. Those of the nave, showing Old Testament subjects (171) and scenes from the lives of St. Peter and St. Paul (173), have Latin inscriptions and were done by native workmen under William I, 11541166, and already betray the more careless execution of the later work at Monreale.

The older work conforms to the Byzantine iconographical scheme. In the center of the dome is a medallion of the Pantocrator surrounded by eight Archangels (169) and, below, in the squinches, are the Four Evangelists writing at their desks, with the Prophets David, Solomon,

Zachariah, and St. John the Baptist in the drum.

Eight busts of Old

Testament Prophets in the spandrels between the larger figures complete

this part of the decoration.

There is a Greek inscription around the

base of the dome in which Roger II dedicates the church to St. Peter in the year 1143.

In the upper part of the apse is a colossal bust of Christ (170), and below the Virgin is seated with SS. Mary Magdalene, John the Baptist, James and Peter. All of these are almost a complete restoration of the eighteenth century. On the triumphal arch is the Hetimasia with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel below. The two lateral apses contain

SICILIAN MOSAICS

183

busts of Christ and the Virgin, the Nativity and the Adoration, and busts

of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Twelve Feasts of the Church were represented on the walls of the sanctuary. Those on the right, from the Nativity to the Entry into Jerusalem are still preserved, but no trace remains of the later scenes of the Passion which undoubtedly once existed on the left wall; the cycle

ends with the Ascension and the Pentecost in the vaults of the north and south arms of the sanctuary.

These mosaics in the sanctuary are the finest in the church and show the Sicilian style at its best. One of the most remarkable is the Entry into Jerusalem (172). It is interesting to compare this with the same subject at Daphni.

At Daphni

we find, perhaps, slightly more

robust forms, more breadth and dignity; but in the Cappella Palatina there is more movement, along with an equal skill in drawing, more interest in the background and in genre details, as in the naked child

in the foreground who struggles to pull off his garment. The vast decoration of the Cathedral of Monreale ™ (175-179) is impressive from its very size and from the effect of splendor which it produces, and perhaps too much has been said about the comparatively poor quality of the work, even if it does illustrate the decline of the Sicilian school. However, in detail, the work is much less fine than that at Cefalü, the Martorana, or the Cappella Palatina.

ness and stiffness, and the color is colder.

There is more dry-

The technique also is more

mechanical. Perhaps a good deal of this inferiority can be explained from the.fact that the work was done too quickly; mere artisans were

employed and many of them used the old formule without much inspiration. The mosaics of the apse and the main body of the church are much better than those of the aisles which are more careless in execution.

The apse (175) copies the scheme of Cefalü (160): there is the same colossal bust of the Pantocrator, but harder in expression, the Virgin with two Archangels and the Apostles below, and finally, a row

A HISTORY

184

of fourteen saints.

OF MOSAICS

On the triumphal arch is the Hetimasia with Arch-

angels and Seraphim; in the lateral apses are St. Peter and St. Paul and scenes from their lives. As in the Cappella Palatina, the nave has a series of Old Testament scenes (176, 177), and in the aisles are scenes from the Gospels, while the vaults and walls of the transepts have the Feasts of the Church. Even the soffits of the arches have busts of saints in medallions, and in the spaces between the larger subjects are standing figures of saints and the Apostles. The inscriptions in the apse are in Greek, but elsewhere they are in Latin.

On the lower part of the first two piers of the choir there are two historical subjects somewhat similar to those in the Martorana.

That

on the right (178) represents William II offering a model of the church to the Virgin, who is seated, with two angels, and the Hand of God above.

On the left (179), we have Christ enthroned, laying His hand upon the head of the king, who is represented as a smaller figure standing at His side. There seems to be some attempt at portraiture in the features of the king.

This great series of mosaics was completed in the incredibly short space of eight years, and it has great merit, if only for the carefully thought-out scheme, which in spite of its complexity does not disturb the lines of the architecture, and produces an effect of dazzling richness. Another Sicilian mosaic of the greatest interest is in a chamber of

the palace of the Zisa (180, 181), erected by William I, 1154-1166, at one end of the old royal park. Here, above a lovely stepped fountain which is adorned with mosaics in conventional designs, are three connected medallions on a background of floral scrolls, reminding one of a

sumptuous Byzantine brocade. The medallions contain conventionalized trees; those at the end are flanked by peacocks, the central one, by archers shooting at birds. This should be compared with similar work in the chamber of King Roger in the Royal Palace where hunting scenes and other subjects are represented (182, 183). "This last mosaic, espe-

SICILIAN

MOSAICS

185

cially, has been much restored, but the work must have originally been

of fine quality, probably executed by those artists who were employed on the royal palace. These mosaics are doubly precious on account of the fact that almost nothing remains of profane work. The splendors

of the Byzantine palaces are known only by the inadequate descriptions of the early texts, and it is easy to forget that the art of mosaic was not entirely the monopoly of religion but that it probably played an almost equally important part in the great secular decorations of the time.

The Cathedral of Palermo has lost all of its old mosaics with the exception of an Enthroned Madonna and Child over one of the doors. This has been much tampered with, so that much of its original character has been lost, but it seems to have belonged to the Norman period. Before leaving Sicily there are a few examples

Messina.7*

to be noticed at

Little of the original work in the three apses of the Cathedral

remains. It was carried out under Roger II, about 1130, but it had already suffered much from fire and earthquake even before the disaster of 1908. There was much restoration in the thirteenth century after

the earthquake of 1232. The principal apse (184)

showed Christ enthroned between the

Archangels Michael and Raphael, the Virgin, and St. John. At His feet, three small figures, added in the thirteenth century, showed the later kings, Frederick and Peter and the Archbishop Guidotto. The whole of the central portion has been replaced by paint. In the left apse was a seated Virgin and Child between two angels, and beyond the angels on the right and left were Eleanor, the wife of Frederick, and Elizabeth, the wife of Peter. In the right apse the central figure was St. John with

his Gospel seated between St. Nicholas and the Bishop, Mino, with small interpolated figures of the young King Louis and his tutor, John of Randazzo, Duke of Athens. Venturi is enthusiastic over the high quality of these mosaics, but what little remains is now in process of restoration and they are seen with great difficulty.

186

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

The church of the former monastery of San Gregorio at Messina had a mosaic in the apse of a seated Virgin and Child with St. Gregory

kneeling with a scroll (185). Messina Museum.

This mosaic has now been removed to the

Although restored, this is a fine work in the best

Sicilian manner of the Cappella Palatina and Cefalü. Before leaving the Sicilian mosaics we may mention two ikons which seem to belong to the school. One, which shows a Virgin of the Hode-

getria type, is in the Museo Nazionale at Palermo, and the other, a Crucifixion, is in the Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin. This flourishing Sicilian school spread to the Norman possessions on the mainland but most of the work has disappeared. However, the

cathedral of Salerno !* still contains mosaics of interest. In a lunette over the central doorway on the interior of the facade, there is a half figure of St. Matthew holding a book with the first words of his Gospel in Latin (186). The background is blue with a green band and a green and gold border. The head of the saint has a gold nimbus, the tunic is of blue and white, and the mantle of reddish brown and gold. The fine quality of this work is in the best Byzantine tradition of the eleventh century, and it is possible that it dates from the reconstruction of the church by Robert Guiscard, 1076-1085, but this would place it earlier than the Sicilian work.

It was more probably done under the later Normans about the middle of the twelfth century, and contemporary with Cefalü or the Cappella Palatina. The mosaics in the lateral apses of Salerno are at least a century

later.

That in the right apse was dedicated by Giovanni di Procida, the

friend of King Manfred and one of the originators of the Sicilian Vespers, and may therefore be dated about 1260. Here, we have the Archangel Michael holding the globe and /abarum, with a seated St. Matthew below,

holding an open book.

On the left are Saints Fortunatus and John, and

on the right, Saints James and Lawrence.

Below St. Matthew is the small

kneeling figure of Giovanni di Procida and an inscription in Gothic letters

SICILIAN MOSAICS

187

relating to the dedication. The style seems to continue the traditions of the Sicilian school, but this mosaic, although complete, was badly restored under Pius IX in 1873. The apse on the left contained a Baptism but only a fragment of the

upper portion remains. This shows a semicircle with the stars and the sun and moon, and rays issuing from the Hand of God; below, are two concentric rows of busts of angels. In style these angels seem to be later than the work in the other apse, and recall the Sienese painters who were working in Naples in the fourteenth century. The Baptism itself and the lower aquatic scene were replaced in fresco during the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. The river scene with its birds and animals, if it reproduces the subject of the original mosaic, recalls the apses of the

Lateran and Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. The central apse was also once covered with mosaics and a recent clearing away of the eighteenth century stucco has revealed fragments of a wide border composed of a garland of leaves and fruit. Also, on the

wall above, other fragments have come to light, among them the symbols of the Evangelists, especially a very fine representation of the eagle in

the best Sicilian tradition.

At the entrance to the Cathedral of Capua !? there is a much damaged representation of the Virgin and Child with St. John the Evangelist. It is of little value on account of its ruined condition but seems to follow in the Byzantine-Sicilian style of the twelfth century.

In a Cathedral lap, and Restituta

Gothic apse in the church of Santa Restituta,"* adjacent to the of Naples, there is a Madonna (187) holding the Child on her seated upon an elaborate Cosmatesque throne between Sta. and St. Januarius. This work of the early fourteenth century

is almost Gothic in feeling, and according to the inscription, was executed

by a Florentine, Lello, in 1322. The style is similar to some of the work in the Florentine Baptistery and the Coronation in the Cathedral, but the throne is in the Roman tradition and a certain roundness and fullness in

188

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

the forms suggest the influence of Cavallini. There is a profuse, but skillful use of gold cubes in the draperies of the figures which blends them

into the background and gives a glowing tone to the whole composition. This work is undoubtedly by a master who was familiar with the best which had been produced in both Rome and Florence and it shows little

or no influence of the Sicilian school. Nearly contemporary with this mosaic in Santa Restituta is one of the last works of that school of decorators and sculptors—the Cosmati and the Vassalletti—which was at its height a century or so earlier. This is the central portal of the cathedral at Teramo in the Abruzzi

which was signed by Diodato in 1332.

The portal with its colonettes

and statuettes in niches, surmounted by a rose window, is one of the finest achievements of the Cosmati school. The bands of mosaic which are combined with intarsia in elaborately worked out geometrical motifs

are in the usual medieval Roman tradition.

VENETIAN

AND

FLORENTINE

MOSAICS

VENETIAN AND Florentine MosAscs The Venetian School—The early work in St. Mark's.—The Genesis cycle of the narthex.—The influence of Venice elsewhere.—Torcello.

—Murano.—SS. Maria e Donato.—Ravenna: the Madonna now in the Archiepiscopal Palace.— Trieste. Venetian influence in Milan: the apse of Sant’Ambrogio.—Venetian influence in Tuscany: the Florentine Baptistery; the Duomo; San Miniato; San Frediano at Lucca; the apse of the Cathedral of Pisa.—Genoa:

San

Matteo.

XI.

VENETIAN

AND

FLORENTINE

MOSAICS

In the eleventh century, Venice, with her rapidly growing Eastern trade and her intimate relations with the Byzantine Empire, was in a better position than any of the other Italian states to appreciate the splendor of the great mosaics of the Second Golden Age at Constantinople, at Salonika and elsewhere. Never showing any marked originality in her art until nearly the time of the Renaissance, it was natural that she should turn to Constantinople, and to the Church of the Holy Apostles

for the plan of the new St. Mark’s, and to the Byzantine mosaicists for its embellishment.

The first church of St. Mark

!* which was built about 830 was destroyed

by fire in 976, and the present church was begun in 1063 under the Doge, Domenico Contarini. At the time of Contarini's death in 1070 it was practically finished, and his successor, Domenico Selvo, began to adorn it. According to the Chronicle of Bembo the decoration of the interior was finished by 1094. It would be natural to suppose that the mosaics (188-204) began at the apse, spread to the vaults and ended in the narthex and on the facade. Some of the oldest work may date from the end of the eleventh century, but the greater part of the early work is

probably not before the middle of the twelfth century. Although even the earlier mosaics have undergone countless restorations, and the greater part of them have been replaced by supposed copies or adaptations of the old work in the declamatory and florid style of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, out of scale and clashing with the architectural lines of the building; nevertheless, the vast extent of the output, the fact that the entire vaults and the upper part of the walls of a great church are completely covered, together with the wonderful marble incrustation of the lower part of the walls, makes of St. Mark's one of the most beautiful of all Byzantine interiors. The softly-glowing

192

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

gold of the backgrounds, broken by the richer color of the figures, with the ever-changing perspectives and reflections make a profound impression. Only a closer study reveals the fact that even the early work is, for the most part, on a lower level than the best work of Daphni or Cefalü. All of this earlier work was probably done by Byzantines, aided, no doubt, by native craftsmen; a document of 1153 mentions a Greek artist, Marco Greco Indriomeni. In fact, it is not until the fourteenth century that a purely native Venetian manner can be distinguished. The general scheme (188) followed the theological conception which we have already seen at Hosios Lucas and Daphni. 'The Heavenly Church occupies the domes; the Church of Christ announced by the Prophets, made triumphant by the Savior ascending to Heaven, and revealed to the world by the Apostles. On the central vaults is the cycle of the great Feasts, and on the adjacent walls, the Miracles of Christ and the Life of the Virgin. A patriotic motive led to the life of St. Mark being represented in the sanctuary. In the less important portions of the nave are Prophets, scenes from the lives of the Apostles and other minor figures, and, on the west wall, the Revelation. Thus, the interior in its entirety represents a great aífirmation of the Faith, while in the narthex is the prelude—the story of the Creation. Without giving a detailed description of all these subjects, we may

divide them into two groups; those of the late eleventh or the twelíth century in the church, and the Genesis group of the thirteenth century

in the narthex. The early work in the church (189-196) includes Christ Between the Virgin and St. Mark ( Deesis) in the tympanum over the entrance door; the Pentecost of the west dome; the Ascension of the central dome; the Christ Emmanuel Surrounded by Prophets of the east dome; the Feasts of the Church and the Life and Miracles of Christ on the adjacent vaults and the upper portion of the walls; the Life of St. Mark in the

sanctuary.

VENETIAN

AND

FLORENTINE

MOSAICS

193

Except for minor details, the iconography is typically Byzantine.

In the Ascension of the central cupola (189, 190), Christ is seated on the rainbow in a starry circle, surrounded by four angels. Below, are the Virgin with two angels, and the Apostles, as in the dome of St. Sophia at Salonika; and between the windows of the drum are the personifications of sixteen Virtues bearing scrolls with Scriptural texts. In the spandrels are the Four Evangelists represented as writing the Gospels, and beneath them, the Four Rivers of Paradise shown as river-gods with urns, according to the antique tradition. St. Matthew and St. Mark are modern. The Pentecost of the west dome (191) bears a good deal of resem-

blance to the one in Hosios Lucas.

In the center is the symbolic repre-

sentation of the Throne with the Dove in a nimbus, and below are the Twelve Apostles, seated, with the rays coming down from the Throne on to their heads. Lower down, are the Sixteen Nations, in pairs, male and female, as described in the Acts, and in the pendentives are four

angels with /abara.

This Pentecost and the Ascension seem to be among

the earliest mosaics in the church. They are better executed and less Stiff than the early scenes of the life of Christ, for example, and they may possibly date from the end of the eleventh century, or, in any case, from the first half of the twelfth.

The Christ Emmanuel of the east dome (192, 193) is shown surrounded by the Old Testament Prophets bearing scrolls with their prophecies, and in the pendentives are the symbols of the Four Evangelists. This is one of the early mosaics, but it seems to me to be later than the Pentecost or the Ascension, most likely sometime after the middle of the twelfth century. Although, in general, the style of all these early works is typically Byzantine, there are numerous minor features which seem to be peculiar to the Venetian school, and which differentiate them for those at Hosios

Lucas, Daphni and elsewhere in the Near East.

Some of these features

194

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

are survivals from the fifth or sixth centuries; such as the representation of martyrs in the sanctuary, as at Ravenna and Parenzo; the personifications of the rivers in the Ascension dome, which go back to classical precedents; and also the allegorical figures of the Virtues in this last dome. Then, too, there are very few Greek inscriptions, the majority being in metrical Latin.

The mosaics of this early group are by no means uniform in quality orintreatment; they were executed by many hands, and at different times, and the task of analyzing them is made doubly difficult by the great

amount of restoration.

However, as Toesca™ has pointed out, we may

distinguish at least two different aspects of the Byzantine style. The more classical manner with its delicate gradations of tone, simplicity of composition and a certain calmness in the attitudes, is seen in the Christ Between the Virgin and St. Mark over the main portal on the west wall (194), and in the scenes of the Temptation and the Entry into Jerusalem (195). But in other mosaics there is the more lively Byzantine conception, the tendency to exaggerate expressions and gestures, and contrasts of color and of light and shade, as in the Virtues of the Ascension, the Apostles of the Pentecost, and in certain scenes of the Passion on the arches below. This is well brought out, for example, by comparing the Anastasis (196) with the above-mentioned Entry into Jerusalem. Certain groups of scenes are undoubtedly by the same hand and show identical facial types, as in the Entry into Jerusalem, the Cleansing of the Temple and the Washing of Feet. The scenes from the life of St. Mark in the sanctuary (197) are in the more lively and picturesque manner,

and probably date from the end of the twelfth century. Even more interesting in some respects than the mosaics of the interior is the Genesis cycle of the narthex (199-202), covering the six shallow domes and the vaults in front of the principal entrance to the church between the first and second domes. In the first dome is the story of Creation and Adam (199, 200), and in the adjacent vaults, Cain and

Abel, Noah, and the Tower of Babel, followed by the story of Abraham

VENETIAN AND FLORENTINE MOSAICS

195

(201) in the second dome, that of Joseph in the next three, and finally the history of Moses (202). The Creation is portrayed in three concentric zones with the story of Cain and Abel in the three adjacent lunettes. The subjects of the other domes are arranged in a single border, the center being filled with a decorative motif on a gold ground. The Genesis subjects go back to the traditions of Early Christian art; we have already found them in Santa Maria Maggiore and elsewhere. They rarely find a place in the later Byzantine art of the East, but, for some reason, in the West they were popular during the twelfth and

thirteenth centuries.

We find them in mosaic in the Cappella Palatina,

in Monreale and in the Florentine Baptistery, and there are several series of frescoes; San Giovanni in Porta Latina, at Rome; Ferentillo; and Assisi. All of these are derived from early prototypes of at least the fifth

or the sixth centuries, but this narthex series has an especial interest from the fact that the Finnish archzologist Tikkanen '** has shown that it is evolved from a different early tradition than the others, a tradition practically identical with the fragments of the famous Cotton Bible. Judging from the few surviving examples of the miniatures, the imitation is faithful, with the exception of the introduction of architectural backgrounds

where none originally existed. The subjects are treated with great liveliness and animation and a fondness for genre details; at times with a true medizval sense of humor. The date is about the middle of the thirteenth century. Some think that the mosaics of the western or entrance section of the vestibule are entirely by Byzantine masters and are earlier than those of the northern part, where there seem to be certain Romanesque characteristics and where the work may have been done by Italians. In fact, all of the work has a certain linear quality which we do not find in other strictly Byzantine mosaics, and it is possible that it was executed entirely by Italian pupils of the early Byzantine masters.

The mosaics of the adjacent Cappella Zeno

(203), portraying a

second series of scenes from the life of St. Mark, have enough similarity

196

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

with the style of the narthex to be dated in the thirteenth century. They have unfortunately suffered from excessive restoration. Some of the mosaics in the church seem, also, to have been restored or redone at this time. Finally, the adornment of the facade was probably finished at this period, if we may suppose that the work began in the interior and gradually progressed outward. In any case, the Translation of the Body of St. Mark, over the left entrance, the only surviving old mosaic of the facade (204), which was certainly finished before 1275, is similar in style to those of the narthex. The fourteenth-century work in the Baptistery we will leave until a later chapter. In Venice itself there are no other early examples which survive, and

in fact there are few records of any, but on the neighboring island of Torcello,^* the fine old Cathedral is famous on account of its lovely Byzantine choir-screens and its admirable mosaics. The extraordinary contrast between the apse with its single figure on a luminous gold ground and the opposite wall with its crowded Last Judgment creates a profound and lasting impression. The church was founded in the seventh century, altered Jater, and again partly reconstructed and restored in 1008 by Bishop Orso Orseolo, son of the Doge of Venice. The mosaics (205-208) are, for the most part, probably the work of the Byzantine masters who were called to Venice which would make them contemporary with the early work in St. Mark’s of the twelfth century, or even before. We will first consider the vault (205) in front of the right lateral apse where we find a central medallion containing the Lamb, supported by four angels, two of them standing and the other two kneeling upon globes. The ribs of the vault have a plant motif and the background is filled by acanthus scrolls containing animals and birds. This composition was evidently inspired by the vault of the choir of San Vitale at Ravenna which it resembles so strikingly. We may also recall the vault

VENETIAN

AND

FLORENTINE

MOSAICS

197

in the Archiepiscopal Palace at Ravenna of the time of Theodoric and the ninth century vault of the Cappella di San Zenone at Santa Prassede in Rome. The style and execution are not early although there are reminiscences of the early work at Ravenna, but it seems probable that the composition itself repeats that of a mosaic of the seventh century, the time of the foundation of the church, and which was almost completely done over in the twelfth century.

In the central apse (206) is a standing figure of the Madonna holding the Child, with the Twelve Apostles below; on the arch are the two

figures of the Annunciation.

The figure of the Virgin, draped in blue,

isolated against the gold background, is very impressive in its stark simplicity. The group of the Apostles, monotonous in gesture and severe in expression, remind Diehl of the work at Hosios Lucas. In fact this mosaic appears to be earlier than any of those now existing in St.

Mark's, and it is possible that it is as early as the middle of the eleventh century. In the apse to the right (207), the Cappella del Sacramento, Christ is seated on a throne holding a book of the Gospels, with Michael and Gabriel at either side. Below, are standing figures of Saints Nicholas,

Ambrose, Augustine and Martin.

The Christ is similar to the Christ in

the tympanum over the entrance door in St. Mark's, perhaps a little earlier, which would place it in the first half of the twelfth century. The vast Last Judgment (208) occupies the whole of the west wall.

For the study of Eastern iconography it is of the utmost importance.” At the top is the Crucifixion with the Virgin and St. John, and below are five zones diminishing in breadth from top to bottom, the two lowest broken by the door, in the tympanum of which there is a bust of the Virgin. The zone below the Crucifixion shows the Anastasis, or Descent into Hell, flanked by colossal figures of the Archangels Michael and

Gabriel.

In the next scene Christ is seen in a mandorla between the

198

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Virgin and John the Baptist, forming the Deesis, with two angels behind.

On either side, are groups of the Apostles, seated, who act as judges, and in the background is a crowd of heads with nimbi—the Blessed.

From

the mandorla a stream of fire descends to the right through the lower zones until it reaches the Damned in the lower right-hand corner. Supporting the mandorla are Cherubim with eyes in their wings, and on the top of each wing appear one of the symbols of the Evangelists.

The following zone contains the empty throne (Hetimasia) with the Bible, and behind it, the instruments of the Passion guarded by two angels. Two kneeling figures, male and female, adore the book—the Apocalyptic Book of Life. On either side, angels are blowing curved horns, and beasts vomit out bodies and fragments of bodies; land animals appear on the left and sea monsters on the right. An angel on the right carries a starry scroll and scatters stars with his other hand. In the middle of the next zone an angel holds a balance which flying devils attempt to push down with spears—the Weighing of Souls; on the left are the Elect; on the right, angels thrust the Damned into Hell. In the corner, Lucifer is seated on a two-headed dragon holding a small figure

of Anti-Christ. In the lowest zone, on the right, are the sinners undergoing their various punishments; the sensual, up to the waist in flames, the violent, walking naked in darkness, the lazy, seated in a bog, those who sinned by sight, with serpents entering the orbits of their skulls, those who sinned with their ears, scorched by fiery ear-rings; and lastly, those who sinned by touch, as masses of skulls and bones. On the left, is the Garden of Eden, with St. Peter and an angel at the gate, and a figure holding a two-armed cross—the repentant thief. Beyond are the Virgin and Abra-

ham holding the souls in his bosom. This detailed description of the theme, aside from its interest as one of the great theological conceptions of the Middle Ages, shows how

extraordinarily complicated the subject was which the artists were forced

VENETIAN AND FLORENTINE MOSAICS

199

to represent, and how well, on the whole, they succeeded in arriving at a certain unity and balance in the composition.

It will be interesting to compare this Last Judgment with the one in the Florentine Baptistery (219-222) which was probably executed about a century later, and which is the only other complete representation of the subject in mosaic.

In the apse of the church of SS. Maria e Donato at Murano, the island midway between Venice and Torcello, there is a standing figure

of the Virgin alone, without the Child (209) on a platform similar to the one in the apse of Torcello. Although it bears some resemblance to the early work in St. Mark's, it is paler in tone and of a more minute

technique, and it probably dates from the early part of the twelfth century. Another much restored mosaic, which was formerly in the apse of

San Cypriano at Murano, is now in the Friedenskirche at Berlin.

It

shows Our Lord enthroned, with the Virgin, St. Peter, St. John the Baptist, St. Cyprian and two Archangels which are similar to those in the Cappella del Sacramento at Torcello and those in the north apse of the

Cathedral of Trieste. Closely related to the work at Torcello are the two apses in the two

churches which together form the Cathedral of Trieste.

In the north

church in the Cappella del Sacramento are the Virgin and Child flanked by the Archangels Michael and Gabriel (210), and below are the Apostles (211) divided into two groups by a palm tree. The work seems to be early, probably from the end of the eleventh century, and it is thoroughly Byzantine in style, although the inscriptions are in Latin. The types of

the Apostles are early, as St. Peter and St. Paul have no attributes, and this may mean that the work is an eleventh century restoration of a much earlier mosaic. A thorough modern restoration was carried out in 1863. In the second apse (212), in San Giusto, Christ is shown treading

200

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

upon the asp and the basilisk, with San Giusto and San Servolo on either

side.

The style is similar to that of the other apse.

The ornamental

borders in both apses are identical with those of the lateral apse at Torcello, and both works may well be by the same hands. The throne of the Virgin here at Trieste has the same decoration as that of Christ's throne in the Cappella del Sacramento at Torcello, and in the second apse, the Cappella di San Giusto, Christ stands on a platform which is identical with those below the Virgins of the apses of Torcello and Murano. In 1112, the apse and the triumphal arch of the Basilica Ursiana

At Ravenna ! were completely covered with mosaics which must have constituted one of the most extensive decorations of the period. "This work was demolished in 1741 together with the rest of the basilica, but we may gain an idea of the rather complicated scheme from an eighteenth century engraving. Fortunately we have a few fragments of the actual mosaics, now in the Archiepiscopal Palace; the full length figure of the Madonna as an orant (213), the heads of the Apostles Peter and John (214), the busts of San Barbaziano and Santo Ursicano, and another unidentified head. The Madonna recalls the similar figure from SS. Maria e Donato at Murano, and the heads may be compared with the Apostles of the apses of Torcello and Trieste, and in general, with the early work in St. Mark's. Some, however, do not group these mosaics with the Byzantine tradition of Venice, but see in them characteristics allied to the early work at Ravenna and consider them to be the final manifestation of that school. In the twelfth century, the fame of the Venetian mosaicists spread to other parts of Italy, again to Milan and a little later to Rome and Florence. In 1218, the pope, Honorius III wrote to the Doge, thanking him for sending a master mosaicist to Rome to embellish the apse of St. Paul's, and asking for two more. We will take up this Roman apse under the Roman mosaics of the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries.

VENETIAN

AND

FLORENTINE

MOSAICS

201

The apse of Sant'Ambrogio at Milan ** (215), in spite of many changes brought about by restoration, is without doubt a Venetian work of the twelfth century. This is clearly shown by the general character of the composition and by what is left of the original style, although it has been variously dated from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries. In the center, Christ is enthroned with angels and the saints, Gervasius and Protasius. He blesses in the Eastern manner and holds a book in His left hand with the inscription: EGO SUM LUX MUNDI. At the sides are two episodes portraying the miraculous intervention of St. Ambrose at the funeral of St. Martin. Throughout the Middle Ages waves of Byzantine influence had spread over Tuscany at different times, and this influence was never stronger than in the thirteenth century, especially in the schools of painting, where it was responsible, among other things, for the rise of Cimabue and Duccio. It is undoubtedly this sympathy for the Byzantine style

which caused the Florentine Baptistery !** to receive, early in the century, the most extensive series of mosaics to be found in Italy outside of Venice and Sicily (216-225). Venice was probably the source of direct inspiration, as all of the earlier work is very like the various phases of the Eastern style as practiced at St. Mark's, and it is only later that this is modified by native masters.

The oldest work in the Baptistery is the vault of the rectangular apse, or “scarsella” (216) which, according to the inscription, was car-

ried out in 1225 by a certain Fra Jacopo Fracescano.'"

Fra Jacopo may

well have been a Venetian. In any case his style is purely Byzantine and seems to have been derived from the followers of the early workers in St. Mark's, of the period just before the narthex mosaics. The center of the vault is filled by a large medallion, in the middle of which, within a smaller medallion, is the Lamb with a nimbus. The space between this central medallion and the outer border is subdivided into eight compartments, each containing a Prophet. The motifs in these borders—foliage, urns with birds facing each other and stags—

202

A HISTORY

OF

MOSAICS

show the same kind of inspiration from early Christian art that we find in St. Mark's. The whole medallion is upheld by four kneeling figures, placed on Corinthianesque capitals, which may well have offered suggestions to the sculptors of the Renaissance. Below, on one side are the Madonna and Child (217), seated on a cushioned throne, and on the

other, St. John the Baptist (218).

The scheme is both original and

interesting, and the artist has sought striking contrasts of light and shade and rich chromatic effects. The work is among the best produced in the thirteenth century. Also related to these apse mosaics are the Prophets standing under arches on the intrados of the arch and the two borders on the exterior of the arch. The outer border consists of a scroll with bunches of grapes and a bust of Christ in the center. At the base of the scrolls are nude figures seated upon animals. The inner band contains busts of Christ,

the Apostles and other saints. The vast scheme of the dome (219), an octagonal cloister vault, shows the work of many different hands, difficult to distinguish on account of the numerous and confusing restorations. They are all more or less closely related to Venetian workers of the thirteenth century, and show as well reminiscences of certain Giottesque artists of the fourteenth

century. In the middle of the vault there is an ornamental border around the

opening for the lantern (220).

In the top zone are Christ between four

Seraphim, together with angels, Archangels, Principalities, and Powers. Below Christ and the Seraphim, in the west compartment, is another colossal Christ in a medallion (221), seated on the rainbow, and forming the center of a Last Judgment which fills three of the eight sections of the dome. The other five sections contain scenes arranged in four superimposed zones, including Old Testament subjects from the Creation to the Deluge, the life of Joseph, the life of Christ, and the life of John

the Baptist.

The individual scenes are divided from each other by deco-

rative columns.

VENETIAN

AND

FLORENTINE

MOSAICS

203

The work probably began at the top, possibly under the direction of Fra Jacopo, for the border bears a good deal of similarity to those in the “scarsella.” There is no valid reason for supposing that the work

was executed by Andrea Tafi,!*' who, according to Vasari, went to Venice and bribed a Greek mosaicist, Apollonius, to return with him to Florence. The angels and other figures of the top zones show those violent contrasts of color and exaggerated movement which we have already seen at St. Mark's. The Last Judgment is typically Byzantine with no traces of a native manner, and, on the whole, the style is inferior to the best work in Venice, betraying a certain clumsiness in the figures, especially in the seated Apostles. The colossal Christ is rather weak in conception and lacks the majesty of the best Byzantine examples. However, the artist who depicted the scene of Hell was a real master of the grotesque,

and even of the horrible (222).

The complicated, writhing, twisting

forms have great vitality. A certain sardonic humor is combined with gifts for caricature, and the extraordinary bluish-green Satan is not

unworthy of one of the later Florentines. In fact, as others have already noted, Giotto was directly inspired

by this mosaic when he painted his Last Judgment in the Arena Chapel at Padua." Giotto’s Lucifer is almost identical with the Lucifer of the Baptistery, and a comparison of the fresco with the mosaic will bring out many other similarities. As the largest and most important early mural in Florence it naturally created a great impression, and it is

probable that it influenced Dante !* in some of the conceptions of his Inferno. Although this Florentine Last Judgment follows the Byzantine tradition, it differs considerably from the earlier version of the subject at Torcello. The whole of the central part is taken up by the colossal Christ in the tondo, so that we no longer have the typical representation of the Anastasis with the Hetimasia and the River of Fire below. On the other hand, the conventional rendering of Hades which we find at

Torcello is here elaborated into a realistic and picturesque scene of

204

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

genre more in line with the later Italo-Byzantine

style of the nearly

contemporary narthex mosaics of St. Mark's. The rest of the work, the scenes from the Old and the New Testaments, is not of the highest quality. It often seems careless and clumsy and it has been marred by successive retouching. In some of the scenes from the life of Christ, Toesca sees the hand of the master, possibly Gaddo Gaddi, who did the Coronation of the Virgin in the lunette over the portal in the Cathedral. More interesting are certain scenes from the life of the Baptist where the Byzantine manner disappears and we may clearly distinguish the hand of native artists. In the Birth of John

(223), especially, one head (224), beautiful in its strong characterization, stands out far above the level of the surrounding work, so strikingly in the manner of Cimabue, that, by comparing it with the head of St. John (230) in the apse of the Cathedral of Pisa, it seems safe to attribute some of this series to him and his assistants. In rectangular panels on

the parapet of the gallery there are thirty-six busts of Prophets '** ascribed by Vasari to Gaddo Gaddi. These nobly conceived heads (225) are contemporary or a little later than the work in the cupola. The busts of bishops just below the cupola are much later, most of them dating from the time of the Renaissance.

It is difficult to over-emphasize the beauty of the interior of the Baptistery. The mosaics seem to gradually develop out of the architecture. The friezes in the architraves of the two orders, and the series of Prophets on the parapet tie in with the gilded capitals and the busts of the bishops above, all leading by degrees to the climax of the cupola whose tone is thus in proper relation to the walls below. Although there is much restoration in the Last Judgment and many of the other scenes, and several styles may be distinguished in the work, the general effect is one of great harmony; a rich golden brown shot through with dull whites, blues, and a curious bluish green. A work conceived as grandly and completely as this must have influenced the early Tuscan painters,

and have helped to give them their sense of scale and breadth of treat-

VENETIAN

ment

and, perhaps,

AND

FLORENTINE

a certain fondness

MOSAICS

for somewhat

205

restrained

and

sombre color. The above-mentioned Coronation of the Virgin (226) over the central portal in the Cathedral !** is attributed to Gaddo Gaddi by Vasari. It is much less Byzantine in style than the earlier mosaics of the Baptistery; it is, in fact, Gothic in feeling. If not by the hand of Gaddi, it is at least a contemporary work of the very end of the thirteenth century.

In the church of San Miniato at Florence“ there is a mosaic in the apse (227) representing Christ blessing, surrounded by the symbols of the Evangelists, with the Virgin and St. Miniatus at either side. The subject is really a Deesis with St. Miniatus in place of the Baptist. The date is 1297, and it is thoroughly Byzantine in style. It is hard in quality and the figures are stiff and lifeless, but this is probably due to the restoration of 1860. "There is also a much restored Deesis (228), originally of the early thirteenth century, on the facade of the church

above the entrance. On the facade of the church of San Frediano at Lucca !* there is a mosaic representing the Ascension (229). Our Lord is shown in a mandorla held by two angels and separated from the Apostles by an ornamental band which divides the composition into two parts. It has the usual Byzantine characteristics of the period—the second half of the thirteenth century—and it is probably contemporary with the upper portion of the Last Judgment in the Florentine Baptistery.

Towards the end of the century, Pisa !* perhaps in imitation of Florence, began a mosaic in the apse of the Cathedral (230); a Christ with the Virgin and St. John the Evangelist on either side. This mosaic was not finished until 1321 and it shows the work of several hands, and it has suffered somewhat from restoration. Fortunately, one head, that of St. John, has escaped the hands of the restorer, and as it is an unquestioned work by Cimabue, it is of the greatest importance as a clue

to his style.

206

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

The small apses of the transepts also contain mosaics which have been more or less tampered with. In the right transept is an Assumption, and in the left, an Annunciation. These are probably from the designs of the painter Francesco Traini (active about 1320 until after 1364), a follower of the Lorenzetti of Siena, and now generally admitted to be the author of the Triumph of Death frescoes in the Pisan Campo Santo. By the fourteenth century the renown of the Florentine mosaicists must have been well established, for, in addition to Lucca and Pisa, we find one of them, a certain Lello, working as far away as Naples in 1322

(187). A possible off-shoot of the Florentine school is a lunette over the central door of the Gothic church of San Matteo in Genoa. This mosaic shows a half figure of St. Matthew. The church was built in 1125 and done over in 1278 and the much restored lunette is later—probably of

the fourteenth century.

ROMAN THE

MOSAICS

OF

THE

THIRTEENTH

TWELFTH CENTURIES

AND

Roman

Mosaics or

THE TWELFTH CrNTURIES

AND THE

THIRTEENTH

The revival in Rome.—The combination of early traditions with the Byzantine style.—San Clemente.—Santa Francesca Romana. —Santa Maria in Trastevere.—Christ between St. Peter and St. Paul from the Vatican crypt.—San Bartolomeo all’Isola.—Restoration of the apse of Old St. Peter's.—San Paolo-fuori-le-mura. —San Tommaso in Formis—Civita Castellana—Spoleto: the Deesis on the facade of the Cathedral.—The vault of the Sancta Sanctorum; the Cosmati and their influence.—Santa Maria sopra Minerva; the tomb of Durande di Mende.—Santa Maria Maggiore; the tomb of Gonsalvo Rodriquez—Palazzo Colonna: Madonna and Saints—Santa Maria in Araceli; the Cappella di Santa Rosa; the Madonna in the lunette.—The Brooklyn Museum Madonna.—Santa Sabina; the tombstone of Munio da Zamora.—San Crisógono; Madonna and Saints—Jacopo Torriti; the Lateran apse, the apse of Santa Maria Maggiore —Rusuti and the facade of Santa Maria Maggiore —Assisi.—Cavallini; his work in Santa Maria in Trastevere—Giotto; the “Navicella.”— Reasons for the abrupt ending of the Roman school in the early fourteenth century.

XII.

ROMAN THE

MOSAICS

OF

THE

THIRTEENTH

TWELFTH

AND

CENTURIES"

There are no mosaics in Rome between the apse of San Marco of the early ninth century and the apse of San Clemente of the late eleventh, a period of nearly three hundred years. The frescoes which still survive from this interim show that the Eastern influence never died out, that, in fact, it increased and reached its height in the thirteenth century, as it

did in Tuscany.

It seems as if the great native masters of the end of the

thirteenth century, Torriti, Cavallini, Cimabue, and Duccio had first to utilize all the possibilities of the Byzantine style before transcending it. But the Roman mosaics are never purely Byzantine.

They cannot

be considered as a direct off-shoot of that school, as those of Venice and of Sicily. Some of the figures seem to show a direct inspiration from classical art in the sturdy forms and in the draperies, and not merely the Byzantine interpretation of classicism; and a curious kind of conservatism causes these Roman masters to go back to the earliest mosaics for their motifs and compositions. Thus, the great acanthus scrolls of San Clemente have their prototype in the apse of the Lateran Baptistery, and the symbolic doves on the cross belong to the conceptions of the fifth century. Torriti at the Lateran and Santa Maria Maggiore retains the

fifth-century scheme of the original work. In short, here, the usual strong Byzantine influence, common to all medieval mosaics, is interpreted through Roman eyes which had looked upon the existing productions of

the Early Christian period with sympathy and understanding. The apse of San Clemente (231) !'" dates from before the reconsecration of 1128, if not from the time of Pascal II, 1099-1118. The background is covered by a series of conventionalized acanthus spirals containing small figures, birds and vases. There is a shell-like ornament

210

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

above from which the Hand of God descends toward the crucifix. Our Lord is represented as dead on the cross with His head fallen side-ways (232). The twelve doves are symbols of the Apostles. On either side are the Virgin and St. John the Baptist. At the base of the acanthus plant in which the cross is standing, is the old symbolic conception of the stags drinking from the Four Rivers of Paradise. Further on, are peacocks and other birds, shepherds with their flocks, and a woman feeding chickens. Four seated figures with books are the Latin Fathers of the

Church; on the right SS. Ambrose and Gregory, on the left, SS. Jerome and Augustine. On a line with the Church Fathers we also have what is apparently a condensed version of the legend of Sisinius, his blindness and subsequent conversion, the same subject which had already been treated with such verve in the eleventh century frescoes of the lower

church.

On the right, is the blind Sisinius led by a boy with his wife,

Theodora, behind, and the figure further on, between SS. Ambrose and Gregory, probably represents the celebration of the Mass. On the left,

as a pendant to the first group, we have Sisinius cured of his blindness, accompanied by two other figures. The detached figure beyond is probably Sisinius again, making a votive offering of the Gospel roll. As in the early mosaics, we have, in the band below, the Thirteen Lambs as symbols of Christ and the Apostles, issuing from Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The spirals of foliage show the old motif of the chapel of Sante Rufina e Seconda treated in a more formal and conventionalized way, characteristic of the twelfth-century Byzantine manner. These, the procession of the Lambs, the shell above, and numerous minor details are so in the Early Christian spirit that some critics have considered the

mosaic to be the copy of an early one, originally in the old church."

In

fact, the central scene of the Crucifixion is in contrast to the rest of the scheme, being more in line with the conceptions of the twelfth century. As mere decoration this apse is superb, a splendid example of fused and brilliant color; the varied greens of the foliage, accented with more brilliant tones, merge into the gold of the background.

TWELFTH

AND

THIRTEENTH

CENTURIES

211

The composition of the triumphal arch is more characteristic of the period, resembling that of San Paolo-fuori-le-mura carried out a century later. In the center is a bust of Christ in a medallion with the symbols of the Evangelists at either side in the midst of conventional clouds. On the left are seated figures of St. Paul and St. Lawrence with the Prophet Isaiah below, and balancing these on the right, are St. Peter and St. Clement with the Prophet Jeremiah. The figures of the saints and Prophets are typical of the Roman Byzantine style of the twelfth century.

The apsidal mosaic of Santa Francesca Romana

(233), or Santa

Maria Nuova, in the Forum, was probably executed about 1161 at the time when Alexander III reconstructed the church which had received rich gifts from the powerful Frangipani. In the center, the Virgin and Child are seated upon an elaborate Byzantine throne, with St. John and St. James on the left, and St. Peter and St. Andrew on the right. The figures are all shown under arches, a curious composition which is not

found elsewhere, and the Virgin wears a peculiar diadem.

The dry

outlines, the minute folds of the draperies, and the linear technique seem to have been inspired by Byzantine miniatures, and the same sources, or possibly Early Christian sarcophagi, are responsible for the background

of arches. This is one of the strangest of the Roman mosaics. The general scheme is interesting, but it seems to have been carelessly done and is provincial in execution. The figures are inclined to be heavy and awkward, and the color is opaque when compared with other examples of the period, such as we find in San Clemente or Santa Maria in Trastevere. The tesser& are more regular and more closely placed than in other work of the time or in earlier examples, and they are much smaller in the faces and in the garments than in the background. Thus the surface tends to be smooth and hard, and there is little of that vibration of color and woven-together texture that we get in the best work. The mosaics of the triumphal arch have been lost, but according to

Ciampini’s engravings and to old drawings, the composition was typical

212

A HISTORY

of twelfth-century Rome.

OF MOSAICS

In the center was the monogram

of Christ

with the Seven Candlesticks and the symbols of the Evangelists, and below, the Prophets Baruch and Isaiah. This composition is almost identical with the one on the triumphal arch of Santa Maria in Trastevere, which it probably copied.

The mosaic of the apse of Santa Maria in Trastevere (234) !"* is of fine quality and one of the most impressive in Rome. "The subject is the Coronation of the Virgin who is represented as seated with Christ upon an elaborately carved Byzantine throne. Both figures, rather heavy in proportions, but well-modelled and impressive, are clad in the richest of Eastern brocades; the Virgin wears a jewelled diadem. On the left are three standing figures, SS. Calixtus and Lawrence, and Pope Innocent II with a model of the church; on the right, SS. Peter, Cornelius, Julius and Calepodius. Above, is one of those shell-like ornaments which we have already seen at San Clemente, and in the band below are the Lambs issuing from Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The whole is enclosed by an

ornamental border in the older Roman tradition—foliage growing out of urns with the sacred monogram in the center. As in San Clemente, the technique is largely Byzantine, but the composition and the decorative motifs are traditionally Roman. "There is a sombre richness of color;

deep browns, a variety of blues and reds, with the high lights brought out in gold. The scheme of the triumphal arch is the same as that which formerly existed in Santa Francesca Romana; the Cross with Alpha and Omega in the center, the symbols of the Evangelists, and Isaiah and Jeremiah below (235), with scrolls. Just above the Prophets are birds in cages.

The seven scenes from the life of the Virgin below the procession of Lambs are the work of Cavallini and will be described later. Santa Maria in Trastevere is the only church in Rome which still retains a portion of the decoration of its facade—the Virgin and Child

seated on a throne with two small figures of worshippers below, and, at

TWELFTH

AND

THIRTEENTH

CENTURIES

213

either side, five female figures in rich Byzantine costume with lighted

lamps, the Wise and the Foolish Virgins (236).

The work must have

originally been thoroughly Byzantine in character but frequent restorations make it difficult to determine the style with any accuracy. It is usually considered as contemporary with the apse, but it is possible that it dates from the time of Innocent III, 1198-1216, who had a good deal of work carried out on the church. According to Venturi, three of the Wise Virgins on the left, with full, rounded forms which contrast with the stiffness of the others, are due to a renovation by Cavallini, but if this is so, it would seem that they must have received additional restoration at least as late as the seventeenth century. On this facade the artists evidently felt that an absolutely flat surface was not suitable for mosaics, which, to be properly seen, need reflected light, since we find that the upper portion of the wall has been projected in a flat curve. Near the top of the campanile, facing the facade, under a canopy, there is a bust of the Madonna and Child on a gold ground. This has

probably been a good deal restored, but it seems to be of the same period as the facade itself. In San Bartolommeo all’Isola™ there still remains a fragment from the facade, a bust of Christ which is so similar in style to the Christ of the apse of Santa Maria in Trastevere that it may be by the same hand. Christ is shown with the cruciform nimbus, blessing and holding the Book. The whole facade was originally covered with mosaics which were ruined during the flood of 1557. A Baroque portico was added to the church in the rebuilding, so that this half-figure of Christ is now in the choir of the Cappuccini, surrounded by modern construction, but it probably occupies its original position on the old facade. It is interesting to note that the surface curves outward in the same manner as the facade of Santa Maria in Trastevere. There is a much worked-over mosaic which was formerly in the atrium of the old basilica in St. Peter's but is now in the crypt. The

214

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

subject is Christ blessing, between St. Peter and St. Paul.

The close

resemblance of the Christ to the one in the apse of Santa Maria in Trastevere justifies us in placing the work in this period, although it has been considered to be of the time of the Emperor Otto II, towards the end of the tenth century. In any case, the work has been so much repaired that it does not at present have much intrinsic merit. Innocent III, 1198-1216, restored the apse of Old St. Peter's! (237) which we have already described in an earlier chapter. Fragments of this work—the heads of Innocent III (238) and Gregory VIII and a phoenix—have been preserved in the Cappella dei Conti at Poli. The head of Innocent III is in better condition than the rest and shows some attempt at portraiture. In 1218, as we know, Honorius III was employing Venetian mosaicists to restore the apse of San Paolo fuori-le-mura. This mosaic was almost entirely destroyed in the fire of 1823, and the modern reconstruction (239) can retain little of the original style; the central figures are wholly modern. In the upper portion Christ is enthroned, blessing and holding the Book, on the left are St. Paul and St. Luke, and on the right,

St. Peter and St. Andrew, while beyond the figures are palms.

In the

lower band is the empty Throne with the instruments of the Passion, a jewelled cross, guarded by two angels, and the Twelve Apostles separated by palm-trees. The diminutive figure of Honorius is seen kissing Christ's foot. On the arch, to the left, are the Virgin and Child enthroned, and an angel; to the right, John the Baptist with a small figure of the Pope in adoration, and another angel. Even in its present state this work seems to be out of the Roman tradition and much more in the contemporary Venetian style, both in the general composition and the scale and the placing of the figures. This is borne out by the fragments of the old mosaic which are now in the sacristy. These include three fine heads of the Apostles (240) strongly

individualized and purely Byzantine in character.

There are also frag-

TWELFTH

AND

THIRTEENTH

CENTURIES

215

ments of the beautiful frieze; conventionalized birds and leaves of rose and silver on a blue and gold ground. Coming within the sphere of R ,man influence is the mosaic on the

facade of the Cathedral of Spoleto, signed and dated 1207 by a certain “Doctor Solsternus.” The subject is the Deesis, treated in the usual Byzantine manner. In fact, the work is much more purely Byzantine in style than the usual Roman work, and bears a good deal of resemblance to the mosaics of Grottaferrata. It is beautifully composed in the Gothic lunette and has great decorative value. The thirteenth century witnessed the rise of the important school

of architectural decorators known as the Cosmati."'

It is beyond our

province to describe their work; pavements of geometric design with an intarsia of porphyry, serpentine and colored marbles; church furniture, choir-screens, ciboria, and candle-sticks in which glass mosaic was combined with carved marble for polychrome effects; and the more purely

architectural use of intarsia in the cloisters of St. Paul's and the Lateran. A number of the Cosmati were mosaicists in the stricter sense of the term, and it is in this connection that they interest us here. Above the portal of San Tommaso in Formis, beautifully placed in a simple architectural enframement, there is a small tondo representing Christ enthroned (241), stretching out one hand to a black slave and the other to a white slave who carries a cross. The inscription: SIGNUM

ORDINIS

SANCTZE

FRATERNITATIS

CAPTIORUM

refers to a

papal decree of 1220 regarding the treatment of slaves. Innocent III gave this church to the order founded by John of Malta to abolish slavery, and freed slaves were formerly lodged in the monastery of San Tommaso. This is a finely balanced little composition, classical in its restraint. An inscription on the archivolt: MAGISTER JACOBUS CUM FILIO SUO

COSMATO FECIT OHC (sic) OPUS Maestro Jacopo, the father of Cosmas.

tells us that the work in by

This same Jacopo signed a half-figure of Christ in the narthex of

216

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

the Cathedral of Civita Castellana (242), dated 1210. The chief value of this mosaic, which is rather archaic and very Byzantine in style, is its skillful adaptation to its architectural setting.

About

1275, Nicholas

III rebuilt the Sancta

Sanctorum,?

the

private chapel of the Popes near the Lateran, and it was probably at this time that the mosaics there (243) were executed. These are productions of the Cosmati is a rather dry Byzantine manner. The vault of the vestibule has a Virgin and Child with SS. Lawrence and Stephen, two angels and two kneeling Popes; and in the elliptical vault of the apse, is a medallion with the bust of Christ supported by four angels. The attractive and very Byzantine Madonna and Child in a niche in the Cappella San Zeno in Santa Prassede (244) is a work, or, at least, a restoration of the thirteenth century, although it is sometimes attributed to the ninth century, probably on account of the fact that all the surrounding mosaics are of that period. Another work of the Cosmati is a little Annunciation in mosaic on

the spandrels of the baldachino in Santa Maria in Cosmedin. There is a group of minor works in Rome executed by various members of the Cosmati school and dating from the end of the thirteenth century. It was the fashion at this time to provide the lunettes of Gothic wall-tombs, and occasionally the portals of churches, with mosaics of the Madonna and Child, sometimes accompanied by various saints, and figures of the donors or the deceased in adoration. Two of these one on the tomb Minerva (245), d. 1299, in Santa

tomb mosaics are signed by a certain Giovanni Cosmas; of Durande de Mende, d. 1296, in Santa Maria sopra and the other on the tomb of Gonsalvo Rodriguez, Maria Maggiore (246). In both, the Madonna and

Child are seated upon an elaborate Cosmatesque throne, accompanied by saints. The attenuated forms and the rather weak but graceful line already show a Gothic influence. In both these mosaics the defunct prelate

kneels at the Virgin's feet; Bishop Durande accompanied by St. Privat,

TWELFTH

AND

THIRTEENTH

CENTURIES

217

bishop of Mende and St. Dominic; and Bishop Gonsalvo, by St. Matthew and St. Jerome. This Giovanni who signs his work, “Johns Filius Magri

Cosmati Fec (it) Hoc opus," was one of the several sons or pupils of Cosmas II, the head of the second family of the Cosmati, active in the last quarter of the century. It is probably Cosmas II’s signature, Magister Cosmaties fexit hoc opus" that we find on a pillar to the left of the entrance to the Sancta Sanctorum. Another funerary mosaic which is very similar in style to the tomb

of Durande is in the Cappella di Santa Rosa at Santa Maria in Araceli.’” Here, the Virgin and Child are seated on a throne without a back which was probably taken away during a restoration. On either side are St. Francis and St. John the Baptist. A kneeling figure wearing the robes of a senator has never been certainly identified; Giovanni Colonna and Pandolfo Savelli have been suggested. Santa Maria in Aracceli has still another of these works, which in the seventeenth century was taken to the Palazzo Colonna where it is still preserved. This work has undoubtedly been rearranged, and a good deal of it has been lost, for the half-figures which remain are all on the

same level; the Virgin and Child accompanied by two small angels, St. John the Evangelist and St. Francis, and between them, the small kneeling figure of Giovanni Colonna. At the extreme left is the Colonna coat-

of-arms. There were several other examples of this type.

A fragment of one

of them, a head of the Madonna, is now in the Brooklyn Museum (247). Still another funerary mosaic of a different type is on the slab which covers the tomb of Munio da Zamora, d. 1300, the Dominicans, in the church of Santa Sabina rigid figure is represented as dead, and clad in the order. The simple tonality of black and white is Finally, in San Crisógono there is

james and St. Chrysógono

(249)

the Spanish general of (248). The somewhat robes of the Dominican rather impressive.

a Madonna and Child between St.

which has often been ascribed to

218

A HISTORY

Cavallini.

OF MOSAICS

The forms are fuller and show more modelling than those of

the Cosmati, but they are much weaker than those of Cavallini, and the work, at the most, may be ascribed to one of his followers. Much better is the Madonna and Child in the lunette of the lateral

portal of Santa Maria in Araceli (250).

The rounded well-modelled

forms are like Cavallini, but there is more gold in the draperies, and the lines are more minute and calligraphic in quality. It is undoubtedly by a master who was familiar with both the work of Cavallini and Torriti,

and Toesca ascribes it to the latter.'*? Jacopo Torriti,'*' at the end of the century, signed the apses of the Lateran and Santa Maria Maggiore. In the first (251), which dates from 1290, nothing remains of Torriti's actual work, and we only have a copy of the nineteenth century which is chiefly valuable for its composition and iconography; but in Santa Maria Maggiore, which was completed five years later, Torriti shows himself to be a superb decorator and colorist

who interpreted the Byzantine style in an intensely personal way. In both cases, earlier compositions of the fifth century were utilized

with certain additions.

In the Lateran,'“ at the top of the apse, the head

of Christ is seen in the clouds, surrounded by angels. Just below the Christ, the Dove descends to a jewelled cross on a mound from which issue

the Four Rivers of Paradise.

Two stags and six lambs are quenching

their thirst at the divine source. On the left are the Virgin and SS. Francis, Peter and Paul, with the smaller figure of the kneeling Pope, Nicholas IV; on the right, we have SS. John the Baptist, Anthony, John the Evangelist and Andrew. The figures stand in a flowery field adorned with birds and cupids, and below, is a Nilotic scene with aquatic birds and

animals and cupids fishing.

In the frieze between the windows are the

Apostles separated by trees. On the left there is a small ciscan monk, kneeling at the feet of St. James, drawing This is probably a portrait of the artist himself, although “Jacobus Torriti pict(or) (h)oc op(us) fecit," he does

figure of a Franwith a compass. in his signature, not mention the

TWELFTH

AND

THIRTEENTH

CENTURIES

219

fact that he is a monk. Another small figure on the right, who is wielding a hammer, is, according to the inscription, “Frater Jacobus de Camerino," Torriti's assistant. The Christ in the clouds, the Golgotha cross, and the Nilotic scene are all parts of the original fifth-century scheme. "The figures, even in their present state, are nobly conceived in the best classical Byzantine style, modified by Roman traditions. The apse of Santa Maria Maggiore (252, 253) contains one of the most beautiful mosaics in existence. The subject is the Coronation of the Virgin. Against a background of acanthus scrolls filled with birds, Our Lord and the Virgin are seated upon an elaborate Cosmatesque throne, enclosed in a tondo upheld by groups of adoring angels. On the

left are SS. Peter, Paul and Francis with the smaller kneeling figure of Pope Nicholas IV; on the right, SS. John the Baptist, John the Evangelist, and Anthony of Padua with Cardinal James Colonna as a pendant to the

Pope on the other side.

Below is the River Jordan in which dolphins and

birds are swimming among tiny ships, and at the extremities are bearded

river-gods after the classical manner. Below this principal composition are five scenes from the life of the Virgin; the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Dormition (254), the Adoration of the Magi, and the Presentation. As in the Lateran we have a typical fifth-century scheme with the introduction of later motifs—the tondo of the Coronation and the attendant saints. In fact, the river scene is so thoroughly early in spirit that some have thought that it and the garlands were actually a part of the original mosaic and contemporary with those of the triumphal arch.

However, this is not possible, as the apse was reconstructed at a later period, and however much Torriti may have been inspired by an earlier

model, the actual work is his.

The Coronation is also typical of the later

period, a development from the earlier one at Santa Maria in Trastevere. The scenes from the life of the Virgin are treated in typical Byzantine

220

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

fashion as far as the iconography is concerned, but perhaps they have

never been better rendered than here, in grace of line and refinements of composition. Torriti was a master trained in the conventional Byzantine formulz, both in iconography and technique, but he employs them with a consum-

mate taste and knowledge which gives individuality to his work.

His

types take on a new suaveness and serenity, as in the Christ of the tondo, or the surrounding angels, or in the Virgin of the Nativity. His draperies with their delicately clinging folds are less conventional. Above all, he is a superb colorist; seldom have more iridescent tones been produced in mosaic. The tesserz are used as spots in a kind of impressionism; soft greens, grays, powdery blues blend into one another in a luminous haze. The high-lights of the draperies are picked out with gold but never in too sharp a contrast, and there is intense color in the shadows.

The mosaics of the facade of Santa Maria Maggiore '* are of about this time, and a part of them still exist, in a much restored condition, incorporated in the present upper loggia. Above, we have Christ seated on an elaborate throne with a curved back, in a star-studded tondo which resembles Torriti’s Coronation motif in the apse (255). The signature, “Phillip’ Rusiti fecit hoc opus," is on the lower edge of tondo, which is surrounded by four angels holding candle-sticks and censers. On the left are standing figures of the Virgin and St. Paul, and on the right SS. John, Peter and Andrew. The central motif shows Rusuti to have been a follower of Torriti, from whom he borrowed the decorative scheme and the type of the Christ. The types of the angels, and their draperies, have analogies with the work of Cavallini, placing Rusuti somewhere between the two artists. In the lower zone are four scenes relating to the founding of the basilica; the Virgin ordering Pope Liberius to found a church in a place indicated by a fall of snow (256), the Virgin commanding the Patrician

Giovanni to build her a church on this spot, the Patrician referring his

TWELFTH

AND

THIRTEENTH

CENTURIES

221

vision to the Pope, and the Pope tracing the plan of the new basilica upon thesnow. According to Vasari, these mosaics are by Gaddo Gaddi. The work has been much tampered with; the types of the Virgin almost seem to be of the fifteenth century, but, on the whole, the work may be assigned to the school of Cavallini. There is a striving for perspective and an over-emphasis upon details, and the execution is much inferior to that of Torriti and Cavallini, although it is difficult to judge it in its present

condition. We may mention here a little mosaic at Assisi, which is undoubtedly a product of the Roman school century. It is in the spandrel between the twin Church. The work is in the broad, impressionistic

a bust of the doors style

of St. Francis, late thirteenth of the Lower of Torriti and

Cavallini but more careless in execution, and Mather !** has ascribed it to Gaddo Gaddi. The Roman school culminates with the work of Pietro Cavallini,'*

who, about 1291, completed the lower part of the apse in Santa Maria in Trastevere with seven scenes from the Life of the Virgin. This work was ordered by Bertoldo di Pietro, the brother of Cardinal Stefaneschi. He is shown in the central mosaic, kneeling and being presented to the Virgin by St. Peter. The scenes from the Life of the Virgin include the Birth of the Virgin

(257), the Annunciation, the Nativity (258), the Adoration of the Magi, the Presentation, the Dormition (259), and the Assumption. Cavallini shows himself to have been trained in the Byzantine traditions, as he follows the usual scheme of iconography, and even the conventional types,

but he transcends these even more than does Torriti, simplifying and ennobling the older themes. He obtains depth and perspective without stepping over the true limitations of mosaic into the sphere of painting. Much has been written upon Cavallini's feeling for form, and upon the great part he played in the revival of painting, especially in connection with his famous frescoes of Santa Cecilia. His nobly-rounded figures and

222

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

his modelling in relief were partly derived, no doubt, from a study of the

antique, and partly because he was especially sympathetic to the more classical aspects of the Byzantine style. Comparing the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Dormition with the similar scenes in Santa Maria Maggiore, we are struck by the greater feeling for space, for broader modelling and light and shade, and by the tendency which Cavallini shows to break away from stereotyped treatment, as in the rapid movement of the Angel of the Annunciation and the natural pose of the Virgin seated upon the elaborate Cosmatesque throne. Even more striking, however, is the way in which Cavallini models in color, doing away with hard outlines and fusing the figures into the background to obtain atmosphere. He employs gold for the high-lights of the drapery, but only enough to render the more natural reflections of light, so that its use ceases to be a mere convention; and in the same manner, he achieves a real depth and richness of color in the shadows. He seems to have thought and modelled in tones, rather than to have filled in spaces defined by lines. With Cavallini the Roman school comes to an end, as a few years later the papal court was removed to Avignon, and artistic activities in Rome were practically brought to a close, not to be revived again until the time of the Renaissance. Ghiberti attributes to Cavallini the mosaics of the old facade of San Paolo fuori-le-mura. According to a sixteenth century drawing in the Vatican the composition showed Christ in a mandorla, and below, the Virgin, St. Paul, St. John the Baptist with the donor, Pope John XXII

at his feet, and St. Peter.

A part of this composition was reconstructed

behind the triumphal arch but only the head of the angel to the right of Christ seems to be original in part, and here we already find the influence of Giotto. A work of the very end of the period which only survives in a sorry adaptation of the eighteenth century, was the famous “Navicella” exe-

cuted by Giotto '** for St. Peter's (260).

The mosaic was ordered by

TWELFTH

AND

THIRTEENTH

CENTURIES

223

Cardinal Giacomo Stefaneschi and was probably completed by 1298. The subject was the familiar one from the Gospel of St. Matthew of Christ Walking Upon the Waves, a theme full of dramatic possibilities, and it enjoyed great fame throughout Italy, so that there are numerous more

or less faithful copies of it in fresco and drawings. The seventeenthcentury copy done by the painter Cosimo Bartoli for the church of the Cappuccini and now in the Museo Petriano shows the original composi-

tion before the restorations of the later seventeenth century.

The work

can, in fact, be best studied in this painting and in several old drawings. The present mosaic is in the portico of St. Peter's over the entrance. It

is in the theatrical style of the period and does not even preserve the original arrangement except superficially. Two heads of angels have been saved which probably belonged to the original work. One, formerly in the Vatican crypt, is now in the Museo Petriano, and the other (261) is in the little church of San Pietro Ispano at Boville Ernica (Bauco), south of Rome near Frosinone, where it was taken in 1610 when the old mosaic was taken down on account of the rebuilding of St. Peter's. The original mosaic was in the form of a lunette like the present one, and the old drawings and frescoes show no place in the composition for two busts of angels. However, it is generally considered that these two busts were placed in the spandrels above the lunette, but they may have been either side of the inscription below the mosaic itself. The angel from Boville Ernica has little or no restoration and it is in remarkably good condition. The head, surrounded by a gold nimbus, stands out on a blue ground. Greens and yellows predominate in the wings; the hair is green, red, and orange; the flesh tones are rose with greenish shadows, and the tunic is dark blue with high-lights of white and gold. The use of gold in the garment, the impressionistic treatment of the hair and wings, and the greenish shadows combined with the flesh tones are typical of the late thirteenth century, as in the work of Torriti or Cavallini, but the

full, rounded forms and a certain majesty of conception are strikingly

224

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

like the early works of Giotto, and the mosaic may be safely attributed to him. The other head in the Museo Petriano has not fared so well. In 1727 it was completely done over in the style of the period. Recently, it has

again been entirely remade in order to have it resemble as closely as possible its companion at Boville Ernica. With Giotto, we come to the end of the Roman mosaics in the medizval tradition. There are no extant mosaics in Rome between the Navicella and the late fifteenth century vault of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme and Raphael's dome of the Chigi Chapel in Santa Maria del

Popolo.

Roman mosaics from Santa Costanza to those of Cavallini and

Giotto give us the most complete picture we have of the evolution and diversity of styles for a period of a thousand years.

THE

FOURTEENTH

CENTURY

ΤῊΣ FouxTEENTH CENTURY The Byzantine Renaissance; character of the new style.—Constantinople: the Kahrie Djami.—Arta: Church of the Parigoritissa.

—The Fetiye

Djami— The changing character of mosaics and the

influence of painting, etc.—St. Mark's: the Baptistery and the Chapel of St. Isidore—The facades of the cathedrals of Orvieto and Siena.—Mosaics in Northern Europe: Prague; Marienwerder; Marienburg.

XIII.

THE

FOURTEENTH

CENTURY"

The Byzantine Empire, after the disasters of the Crusades and the sack of Constantinople, never recovered its former prestige, but the Latins were driven out in 1254, and under the new dynasty of the Palzologi, it continued to exist for another two hundred years. Too many writers,

following a rather biological point of view in regard to the development of art, have treated this period as one of complete decadence. This gives a very false impression of actual conditions. It was a time of experiments, of innovations, and of new developments which only ceased with the conquests of the Turks. The best of the frescoes at Mistra, at Mount

Athos and in Macedonia need not fear comparison with contemporary work in Italy; they are not of the stereotyped and lifeless tradition into which Byzantine art always tends to fall, but which is not characteristic

of it, as a whole, except in the survivals after the fifteenth century. The masterpieces of this later style are the mosaics of the Kahrie Djami !** at Constantinople (262-267). This mosque was formerly the church one of the most ancient foundations in the second time at the beginning of the twelfth princess of the imperial family. After the

of the monastery of Chora, city. It was rebuilt for the century by Maria Ducas, a return of the Greek princes,

it was restored and embellished between 1310 and 1320 by Theodore Metochites, minister of the Emperor Andronicus Paleologus, 1282-1328.

The mosaics are in the inner and outer narthexes.

In the outer

narthex are scenes from the life of Christ, while in the second narthex, is the cycle of the life of the Virgin, taken from the Protevangelium of

St. James, which it follows almost scene for scene.

The church itself was

originally adorned with mosaics but these have been destroyed or covered with white-wash, although a few fragments have been recently brought to light.

228

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

In the two cupolas of the second narthex there is, as it were, an

introduction to the scenes below. One (262) shows Christ in the center with figures of the patriarchs from Adam to Methuselah and representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel; the other shows the Virgin surrounded by sixteen Kings of Israel; and eleven Prophets. Over the tympanum leading írom the inner narthex into the church (263), Theodore Metochites in a high white turban striped with red, a gold tunic, and flowered green mantle, is represented as offering a model of the church to the enthroned Christ. In addition to these mosaics, there are, over the entrance door, a bust of Christ, and opposite, the Virgin between two Archangels, beside a number of individual figures of saints and Apostles. A fine Dormition of the Virgin (264) has been recently discovered over

the central door in the church. Kondakoff's theory that the majority of these mosaics are of the twelfth century, and that they were only restored by Theodore, is not at all borne out by the style. A comparison of them with others which are surely of the twelfth century, such as those of Daphni, will bring this out clearly, and it would seem that Diehl, Millet, and others have conclusively proved that the work must be contemporary with the rebuilding of the church in the early fourteenth century. We also have the proof of Nicephoras Gregoras in his History, who states that Theodore Metochites redecorated the whole interior; and, finally, the mosaics are too homo-

geneous to be mere patch-work. We are at once struck by the great differences from the earlier Byzantine style. The compositions are much freer, with more interest in elaborate architectural backgrounds and representations of nature. There

is a fondness for intimate and familiar details, an interest in perspective and movement, and an almost complete breaking away from the traditional rendering of old themes. Note the life and movement of the prancing horses in the scene of the Wise Men Before Herod (265), and the animation and details of genre in the Birth of Christ and the Adoration of the Shepherds. Above all, the scenes from the apocryphal life of the

THE

FOURTEENTH

CENTURY

229

Virgin afforded an opportunity to indulge a taste for variety in composition, picturesque backgrounds inspired, no doubt, by the great humanistic revival of the period, and for the introduction of contemporary types and costumes. The almost Baroque attitude of the Virgin in the Annunciation

(266) is unlike anything in earlier Byzantine art, and in the scene where the Virgin receives the wool for the temple veil from the high-priest (267), the artist shows more interest in the grouping of the elongated figures against a background which might almost be a stage setting, than in the subject itself. The variety and delicacy of the color, and the desire to obtain new tonal effects probably shows the influence of contemporary fresco painting. These mosaics have, as a matter of fact, many characteristics in common with the frescoes of the period at Mistra and Mount Athos, and the later Byzantine school in general. In its varied compositions, its sense of the picturesque and fondness for familiar detail, this school has

analogies with the Gothic art of western Europe, and, especially, with Italian painting of the Trecento. The question arises as to what extent this Byzantine Renaissance is indigenous and original, and how much it may have been influenced by the West. Ainalof comparing the mosaics of the Kahrie Djami with those of the narthex of St. Mark's, and both

with the Gothic art of the West and with the Italian painting of the Trecento, comes to the conclusion that this Byzantine work of the fourteenth century is due rather to the mingling of the styles of the West with the older Byzantine tradition than to any great creative originality. It is true that there was a good deal of intercourse between the court of the Paleologi and the rest of Europe, especially Italy, throughout this period; but it seems too much to say that the Byzantine work shows a direct Italian influence. The two styles are, rather, the results of general

tendencies which were common to both.

There are no details in the

mosaics of the Kahrie Djami which point to a direct inspiration from anything Italian, and I think that we may conclude with Millet that

230

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Constantinople herself played the predominating röle in the development

of the Byzantine Renaissance. At Arta,’ in the church of the Paregoritissa, the dome has a colossal bust of Christ, with Prophets bearing scrolls, between the windows of

the drum. ning from older may

The church was erected by the despots of Epiros at the begin-

of the thirteenth century and craftsmen were probably imported Constantinople to execute the mosaic. This mosaic follows the tradition rather than the newer style of the Kahrie Diami, and be dated in the thirteenth century.

The dome of the Fetiye Djami

(268, 269),’ at Constantinople,

originally the church of St. Mary Pammakaristos, shows, however, the newer tendencies of the early fourteenth century. There is a medallion of Christ in the center, surrounded by twelve Prophets. The Christ is of a much milder, sweeter type than the severe Pantocrator of the twelfth century, and there is a striving for variety and liveliness in the poses of the Prophets. It is one of the most attractive of the smaller Byzantine dome decorations, both in composition and color. This marks the end of the Byzantine mosaics—a glorious tradition which had lasted for a thousand years. The Near East which had seen the rise and development of the art, was already in the hands of the Turks, soon to take Constantinople itself. Henceforth, its practice is confined to Italy, except for the sporadic attempts to revive it in Northern Europe during the nineteenth century. Turning again to Venice, we find two series of mosaics of this period

at St. Mark's, in the Baptistery and the Cappella di Sant'Isidoro,'" both carried out about the middle of the century under the Doge, Andrea Dandolo, 1342-1354. In the Baptistery, are thirteen scenes from the life of the saint, and a lesser number of scenes from the life of Christ. The dome above the altar (270) shows Christ enthroned in a starry disk, surrounded by nine

angels and the Nine Intelligences, according to St. Paul.

In the penden-

THE

FOURTEENTH

CENTURY

23I

tives are the Four Latin Fathers of the Church; Augustine, Jerome, Gregory and Ambrose. The cupola over the font shows the Sending Forth of the Apostles. In the center, is Christ with a scroll and banner, seated on a double rainbow. Below, are the Apostles, each baptizing a convert accompanied by a sponsor in native costume. A tower behind each group suggests a city, the place of the baptism, and the name of the Apostle. Here, in the pendentives are the Four Greek Fathers; Gregory

of Nazianzus, Basil, Athanasius, and John Chrysostom. These mosaics, even more than those of the Kahrie Djami, show

the characteristics of this last phase of the Byzantine school in their liveliness and movement, their love of accessory detail, in costumes, architecture, even in furniture and the appointments of the table, as in Herod's Feast (271). There is a certain lightness and gaiety, an unconcern with

the seriousness of the subject, and a fondness for pageantry, which makes one think of Flemish miniatures, and of the North Italian painting which developed a little later with the so-called International School. In fact,

here there is undoubtedly a direct influence from contemporary Italian painting, as, for example,in the angels in the dome surrounding Christ; but, in general, here again, the execution, the iconography, even the types are Byzantine, and the work must, at least, have been superintended by

Greek artists. Whatever the work may lack in seriousness is more than balanced by its decorative quality and its striking and brilliant color. The Cappella di Sant'Isidoro with scenes from the life of that saint is less interesting than the Baptistery. The work is of the same general style as the latter. The adventurous career of St. Isidore gave an opportunity for the portrayal of lively, anecdotal scenes of genre; but the execution is inclined to be dry and hard, and the color is opaque, perhaps in part due to the effects of bad restoration. During the fourteenth century, we are safe in supposing that Venice

had a trained school of mosaicists, independent of the Byzantine masters, and that she provided her own materials from the glass factories of Murano. From this time on the work is essentially Venetian, or native,

232

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

in character and shows little or no Eastern influence.

A small mosaic of

the Crucifixion on the Gothic wall-tomb of the Doge, Michele Morosini, d. 1382, in the church of SS. Giovanni e Paolo, is quite in the style of contemporary North Italian painting. In the rest of Italy there is little fourteenth-century work of importance. The cupola of the Florentine Baptistery was practically completed, although there is evidence that restorations were carried out even at this early date. Rome lay neglected on account of the Babylonian Captivity. The most significant work, outside of Venice, is the embellishment of the Gothic facades of the cathedrals of Orvieto and Siena. The Cathedral of Orvieto was begun in the last decade of the thirteenth century, and the facade was probably originated by the Sienese, Lorenzo Maitani, in the early fourteenth century, and continued by Andrea Pisano in 1347, Andrea Orcagna in 1354 and others. Here, the marble base and the piers with their pinnacles and crockets, form a sort of gigantic Gothic tryptich for a series of pictures in mosaic. The marble has now toned to a warm ivory and the glittering mosaics give an extraordinary polychrome effect, which would be finer if they were not, for the most part, rather garish intrusions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The scenes have to do with the life of the Virgin and her glorification. They are above the doors and in the three pointed gables and include the Annunciation, the Marriage of the Virgin, the Baptism of Christ and the Coronation of the Virgin. Two monks, Cecco Vanni and a certain Francesco, may have been responsible for the early mosaics and at least one member of the Cosmati family of Rome—Jacopo— worked here. The most important scene—the Coronation of the Virgin —is in the central gable over the rose window. A much refashioned mosaic in the South Kensington Museum representing the Nativity of the Virgin with two Prophets in the spandrels

was long looked upon as the work of Orcagna, but although it may once

THE

FOURTEENTH

CENTURY

233

have formed a part of the decoration at Orvieto, the signature, “Andreas Cionis," and the date, “MCCC Sexagesima" have been proved to be

forgeries.'? The facade of Siena employed mosaics to a much smaller extent, reserving them for the three gables. Here, as at Orvieto, they are inferior works of a late period, and are interesting only for their general polychrome effect. Northern Europe, as we have seen, did not take kindly to this art. It was not adapted to Gothic architecture with its absence of wall spaces and strongly vertical lines; here, its place was taken by stained glass. However, before the full development of Gothic, in the later Romanesque

period, we hear of mosaics in France and Germany, and even in Spain, although nothing of this work now remains. The Abbot Suger, 10821152, covered with mosaics the pavement and the arch of the lateral portal of St. Denis. These were apparently formed of marble, enamel and gold tesserz, and some figures were represented together with fantastic beasts and decorative patterns. There were a number of early pavements, including one in the church at Ainay, near Lyon, which was consecrated in 1152 by Pope Pascal II. In Germany, mosaics are mentioned at various places, especially at

Hildesheim, where the famous Bishop Bernward ordered scenes of the Sacrifice of Abraham, and the Trinity; but these were doubtless pavements. In the fourteenth century, however, there was a final attempt to

acclimate the art in the North."*

Mosaicists from Venice were called to

Bohemia by the emperor Charles IV, and in 1371 executed a Christ in Glory and a Last Judgment on the exterior of the Cathedral of Prague in which the emperor and empress and the six patron saints of Bohemia figured. This was entirely done over in 1837. About 1380, these same masters proceeded to North Prussia where at Marienwerder, a town on the Liebe founded by the Teutonic Order, they did a Martyrdom of St.

234 John the Evangelist.

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS This last mosaic, which is in the Dom-Kirche, still

exists in a much altered state.

Also, at Marienburg, another Baltic town

founded by the Teutonic Order, then at the zenith of its power, they executed a Virgin and Child (272). This colossal figure in relief, twentysix feet in height, is in a niche on the exterior of the Marien-Kirche. It is in a late Gothic style and has been much restored. This attempt to carry the art across the Alps bore no more fruit than did Charlemagne's efforts six centuries earlier. These are the only wall mosaics we have in Northern Europe from the apse of Germigny-des-

Prés until the modern work which begins about the middle of the nineteenth century.

FROM

THE

RENAISSANCE

NINETEENTH

TO

CENTURY

THE

From THe RENAISSANCE TO THE NINETEENTH CENTURY The increasing influence of painting and the relationship of the painters of Venice and Rome to the mosaicists.—St. Mark's: the Chapel of the Mascoli; Giambono.—Florence: Baldovinetti and Ghirlandaio—Rome: Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, the Cappella di Sant’Elena—Santa Maria del Popolo: the Chigi Chapel; Raphael and Luigi de Pace. Venice; the influence of Titian, Tintoretto and others.—The trial of 1563; the Bianchini and the Zuccati.—The lowest ebb of the art.—Revival under Leopoldo dal Pozzo.—The Vatican Studio: Muziano da Brescia.—Decoration of St. Peter's; the altars.

XIV.

FROM

THE

RENAISSANCE

NINETEENTH

TO

THE

CENTURY

With the Renaissance '* begins a new phase in the history of mosaic. This period, which brought about such brilliant changes in architecture, in sculpture and in painting, gives the death-blow to it as an independent art. To survive at all, mosaic had to finally become the

slave of painting. When we look at the early examples, those of Ravenna, Parenzo, or Rome, we feel that the artists who produced them were, first of all, mosaicists, men who thought and expressed themselves in that medium. These mosaicists understood perfectly the possibilities as well as the limitations of their own special technique, and it never occurred to them to imitate any other. With the help of assistants they undoubtedly both designed and executed their work. Far from imitating the art of painting, their prestige was so high that the painters frequently

copied them, as, for example, in such apses as those of Foro Claudio in Southern Italy, San Bastianello at Rome, San Silvestro at Tivoli and elsewhere—frank transcriptions, both in composition and technique, of

mosaics. In the mosaics of Daphni, or those of Sicily, and in the early work in Venice it is the same. Even Torriti and Cavallini, when they worked in mosaic, expressed themselves as mosaicists and not as painters. But even Cavallini with his chromatic color effects, his fusing of the outlines with the background, and his feeling for spatial and plastic effects, shows that he was alive to the new influences which were beginning to revolutionize painting. We have already noted the pictorial quality in the Kahrie Djami and the Baptistery of St. Mark's. The next steps are the translation of the designs of painters into mosaics, the constantly increasing efforts to imitate the actual gradations of tone and light and shade which were a result of the more naturalistic modes of painting. Comparatively few colors were used in the early work, but now the tones

238

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

are vastly multiplied to compete with pigments. The tesserz are fitted more closely together, and even polished smooth, doing away with that

texture which is the very essence of good mosaic.

The mosaicists tend

to become mere artisans, mechanically filling spaces, matching colors to the cartoons spread out before them, and their product degenerates into an imitative and completely unsuitable medium of expression. It is only in our own day that there has been some recovery from this complete subjugation to another art. The work in the Chapel of the Mascoli in the north transept of St

Mark’s stands midway between the old and the new."5

It is quite in

the style of contemporary painting, especially of the Paduan school and Jacopo Bellini, with the possible influence of such Florentines as Andrea del Castagno. It shows the same fondness for perspective in the elaborate architectural backgrounds exhibiting the new Renaissance detail, and in the wiry figures with their tormented and rather metallic draperies. But it is also broadly treated in a manner which does not overstep the bound-

aries of good mosaic. The subjects are five scenes from the life of the Virgin, and the Virgin and Child between the Prophets, David and Isaiah. The Birth of the Virgin and the Presentation (273) were signed by Michele Giambono in 1444, and Giambono is probably responsible for the execu-

tion of the rest, although the cartoons may have been provided by others. Giambono, in painting, was a follower of Jacobello del Fiore, and influenced by Gentile da Fabriano and Pisanello. In the Death of the Virgin (274), a noble composition, worthy of Mantegna, some see the hand of Andrea del Castagno. It is more probable, however, that this composition was originally executed by Giambono and later modified by an artist trained in the Mantegnesque tradition. The central part with the figure of the Virgin and the two Apostles each side of the bier recalls Mantegna's wonderful painting in the Prado, and these figures, together with the Christ and the medallion heads in the frieze above, are strongly reminiscent of Mantegna and quite different in style from the rest of the

FROM

THE

RENAISSANCE

TO

NINETEENTH

CENTURY

239

work. The end of a scroll with the word FECIT in the lower right-hand corner is similar to the other inscriptions and would show that the work was originally carried out by Giambono. The Visitation is also similar in style to this mosaic and was probably largely executed by the same artist. No more work of importance was done in St. Mark's during the rest of the century, and the mosaics of Giambono are the last which have any connection with the older traditions. In 1506 the enthroned Christ of the central apse was executed by one Petrus according to the inscription, PETRUS.F. MCCCCCVI. The figure has a certain dignity and does not as yet show the influence of the High Renaissance and the group of painters headed by Titian. It replaces an earlier composition which was destroyed in the fire of 1419. There are several other minor works by Petrus in the basilica. Florence was much too occupied with painting to give more than a passing interest to mosaics, but at least two artists of note devoted a part of their time to this medium. Alesso Baldovinetti, 1425-1499, according to Vasari, studied the processes and technique and wrote a book about it. In 1455, he did a head of Christ supported by angels over one of the doors in the interior of the Baptistery, and he also repaired the mosaics of the dome, which were already in disrepair, as well as those of San Miniato. His pupil, Domenico Ghirlandaio, began a mosaic in the Chapel of St. Zenobius in the Duomo, of which only fragments remain, and undertook a few other works. The Annunciation (275) over the north portal of the Cathedral is probably from his cartoons. The Madonna, seated under a Renaissance portico, the kneeling angel with flying draperies, and the balustrade with the trees in the background form a typical Ghir-

landaio composition.

Gold is used for the background and also with good

effect for the high-lights in the pavement and on the draperies. Also in Florence there is a similar Annunciation in the central lunette of the

portico of the Annunziata. of this same school.

It is in rather poor condition but seems to be

240

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Ghirlandaio's brother, David, worked

on the facades of Orvieto

and Siena. David also did a Madonna and Child which was carried to France by the Président Jean de Ganai, who had accompanied Charles VIII into Italy. This, a poor and much retouched work, is now in the Musée Cluny. In fact, what little remains of this fifteenth-century work in Florence is in a rather minute and dry manner and is not of great

interest.

We may mention the half length figure of St. Zenobius (276)

by Monte di Giovanni di Miniato, 1505, now in the Opera del Duomo.

As Vasari says in his Life of Titian: "In truth it is deplorable that mosaic, that art which is equally precious by reason of its beauty as by reason of the permanency of its materials, should not be more cultivated by artists and more encouraged by Princes."

There is one fifteenth-century example in Rome in the church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme,"* the vault of the Cappella di Sant'Elena (277), executed about 1480.

This is a rather banal and complicated

rendering of the type of decorative scheme made popular by Pinturicchio, Antoniazzo Romano, and the fifteenth-century painters of the Sistine Chapel—interlacing circles and ellipses, figures in niches, and the interspaces filled with garlands and arabesques. The actual design has been attributed to the architect Baldassare Peruzzi. In the central tondo is a bust of Christ surrounded by cherubs, a composition obviously in-

spired by Melozzo's frescoes in Santi Apostoli.

In the four adjacent

ellipses are the Evangelists with their symbols—Peruginesque figures— and between, are four small scenes from the legend of the True Cross. In the soffit of one arch are St. Sylvester in papal garb, and St. Helen with the Cross, with the symbols of the Passion in the tondo; in the other, St. Peter and St. Paul with the Lamb of God. In spite of a rather weak and complicated composition this mosaic has a good ornamental effect on account of its well arranged and brilliant color.

Raphael had used cornices of imitation mosaic in his first “Stanza” of the Vatican; he also provided cartoons for the mosaics which formed part of the decoration of the cupola in the chapel which he designed for

FROM

THE

RENAISSANCE

TO NINETEENTH

Agostino Chigi at Santa Maria del Popolo."'

CENTURY

241

'The mosaics (278) rep-

resent the creation of the world according to the theories of Aristotle

and Ptolemy, and associate gods and angels in the true Renaissance spirit. There is a central medallion with the Creator, surrounded by eight compartments containing the planets in their mythological form; Jupiter,

Saturn, Diana, Mercury, Venus, Apollo, Mars, all represented as halffigures and with guardian angels above; the eighth compartment is reserved for the fixed stars, represented on a sphere. By the side of Venus is the date, 1516, and a cupid holding a torch which contains the monogram of the mosaicist, Luigi di Pace, whom Agostino Chigi had obtained expressly from Venice. The work was badly damaged during the sack of Rome in 1527, and in the following century, in 1651, it was repaired by order of the pope, Alexander VII, of the Chigi family. This is the only product we have of the High Renaissance.

The

design shows Raphael's characteristic elegance and restraint, and the individual compartments are beautifully proportioned to the space, although, as Gerspach has pointed out, the figures are, perhaps, too small. As a mosaic, it is excellent in execution, unusually so, for the period. The color is clear and brilliant with dominating tones of blue and gold.

In Venice," during the first quarter of the sixteenth century, begins that tremendous activity of mosaicists controlled by painters, which destroyed so much of the early work at least partially existing at this

time, and which even threatened to do away

entirely with the old

output. It is true that many of the old mosaics in St. Mark's were in very bad condition. The basilica had settled, the coating of cement

used to attach the work to the walls was sometimes of poor quality and did not hold, the fires of 1419 and 1429 had done much damage.

But

we may be sure that the artists of the time rejoiced in the opportunity to replace the old. To the men of the Renaissance the Byzantine mosaics seemed uncouth and barbarous. Vasari represents the average taste of

the time in his contempt for these and his excessive admiration for the work of his contemporaries, which, he says, “seems painted in oils.”

242

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Titian proposed to do away completely with the old work and to replace it by mosaics executed from the cartoons of contemporary painters. This proposal was adopted about 1530, and twenty years later, the vaults of the atrium between the two main entrances were covered with new mosaics from the designs of Titian, Pordenone and

others.

A reaction came in 1610,' and the Government forbade the

destruction of the old mosaics, and decreed that in case it was necessary to replace them, a careful design should be taken so that they might be restored to their original condition. This praiseworthy attitude did not bear much fruit, for whenever the mosaics were restored it was always in the style of the period when the work was done; in times of creative art it is next to impossible for the artist to adapt himself to the style of

other days. However, at least the decree of 1610 probably preserved such Byzantine mosaics as still exist. It would be tedious to enumerate all these productions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries carried out by the Zuccati, Bianchini,

and others famous in their day.

Some were mere artisans who copied the

cartoons of Titian, Tintoretto and other less well-known painters. A few furnished the designs for some of the lesser mosaics themselves. Although the mosaic workers of the later period did not have the status of the great painters, they were, nevertheless, held in honor, and the Republic constantly tried to keep the quality of the output on a high level. Each artist was required to produce a “masterpiece” to be passed upon by a committee of competent judges before he was admitted to regular employment, and he was also required to train two assistants in

order that the supply of craftsmen should not give out.

Thus, in 1565,

there was a competition in order to give each artist his proper place by order of merit. Each was required to do a figure of St. Jerome from a single model. The judges were Jacopo Sansovino, Tintoretto, and Paolo Veronese, and the first place was assigned to Francesco Zuccato, who was not without guile, as he is said to have had his model secretly improved by the hand of his friend Titian.

FROM

THE

RENAISSANCE

TO NINETEENTH

CENTURY

243

In spite of the interest of the State, the work became more and more of a mere craft. Until the seventeenth century, the cartoons were usually on paper. These were applied to the plaster surface and the design of the mosaic was pricked through. In many cases these cartoons were probably only outline drawings and the mosaicist worked out the color scheme. In the seventeenth century and later, when there was a complete dependence upon painting, elaborate colored cartoons were provided, carefully worked out on canvas, and some of these are still preserved. One of the most famous of the sixteenth-century mosaics in St. Mark's is the great Apocalypse in five compartments on the vault preceding the first cupola (279), the work of the brothers Zuccati. The Angels Guarding the Seven Churches of Asia, a part of this scheme, was the subject of the so-called “Trial of 1573" which throws an interesting side-light on the conditions of the art at this time. The Bianchini brought suit against the Zuccati who were charged, among other things, with

having used paint on their mosaics to produce the effects. referred to a celebrated tribunal and others. The Zuccati were provided cartoons for them, but own expense those mosaics which

of artists; Titian, warmly defended they were forced showed traces of

The case was

Tintoretto, Veronese by Titian, who had to do over at their paint.

The principal reason for a disparaging attitude towards all of these productions is the fact that they are so completely out of harmony with their surroundings. Mosaics are primarily architectural decoration, and, as such, they should be in scale and in character with the building.

These colossal figures with their often violent attitudes, flying draperies, and over-dramatic qualities are always out of proportion and at discord with the setting. They not only destroy the effect of the earlier work,

but the masses and perspectives of the church itself.

In a proper environ-

ment of Baroque character, of sufficient scale and spaciousness, the best of them would probably have a certain grandiose quality. "Venetian mosaics never reached the low level of dull, servile copying of paintings,

244

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

such as the altar-pieces of St. Peter's.

Even if they were dominated by

painting, they sought to interpret that art in their own medium, rather than to exactly reproduce it. The art was at its lowest ebb from the middle of the seventeenth century to the arrival of the Roman, Leopoldo dal Pozzo in 1715. During this period the work lacks almost all inspiration—an empty copying of the cartoons of secondary painters. Technique declines to the point where the cubes are often touched up with paint after they are in place, although, as we have seen, this process was not unknown even in the sixteenth century. The general inferiority of the artists employed on St. Mark's was fully realized, even by the authorities of the time, and various attempts were made to obtain mosaic workers from Rome, a reversal of the days when under Honorius III, Rome herself had sought help from Venice.

Leopoldo dal Pozzo,'*! a Roman who worked at Venice from 1715 to 1745, may be said to have raised mosaic again, for a time, to the level of an art. The rich, glowing color of his lunette (280) over the north door of the facade of St. Mark's, representing the Doge with the Nobility and Clergy receiving the body of St. Mark, is unique in the eighteenth century. It was executed from a cartoon by Sebastiano Ricci, a typically

pompous and rather theatrical conception of the time, but dal Pozzo's gorgeous effects of vibrating color have no precedent until we go to the work of Giambono or the fourteenth-century mosaics of the tistery. The fact that the brilliancy of this work is out of harmony its surroundings should not prevent us from giving due credit

back Bapwith to its

intrinsic merits, especially in a period where there is so little to admire. In 1516, as we have seen, the Venetian Luigi de Pace worked in Rome at Santa Maria del Popolo. For the next sixty years there are no more mosaics in Rome of any importance, for it is not until 1576 that the work in connection with the new basilica of St. Peter's begins. This continues through the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries and

FROM

THE

RENAISSANCE

TO NINETEENTH

CENTURY

245

sums up the output of the period. At first there was no official studio in connection with the Vatican; the artisans were recruited from the various private workshops of Venice and Rome, under the direction of a master mosaicist, and were employed from time to time as the occasion required. This was more or less the state of affairs under Muziano da Brescia, 1528-1592, Provenzale da Cento, 1575-1639, G. Calendra, 15091648, Fabius Cristofari, and de Gessi. In 1727, under Pietro Paolo

Cristofari, who was named superintendent of the pontifical studio by Benedict XIII, it had a more regular existence. After being installed in various localities, it was finally established in the Vatican itself, in the Cortile di San Damaso, by Leo XII, where it remains today.

We are now concerned with the work of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.’

by painters.

As in Venice, the designs and cartoons were provided

A good deal of favoritism seems to have been shown in the

choosing of these men, popular artists whose work was not considered to be on the highest level even in their own day; the names of most of

them have been all but forgotten, except by the curious, and it is sufficient to mention the Cavaliere d'Arpino and Pietro da Cortona. "The architect and sculptor, Bernini, also directed the designs for a time. Thus, the great central dome (281) and the domes and vaults of the aisles and chapels were covered with mosaics done, for the most part, during the seventeenth century. The compositions are, of course, in a

Baroque style and of a scale and character to harmonize with the architecture.

Although

the subjects run the gamut

of sacred history, we

think of them primarily, together with the profusion of colored marbles, gilding, sculptured saints and putti, as architectural decoration, and, as such, they are good in scale while the very brilliancy of the material is

more suited to this high-keyed, grandiose scheme than fresco would be. In fact, most of them are at such a distance from the eye that they seem like highly varnished paintings. As mosaics, most of them are inferior to those of St. Mark's, both in design and in execution. In the

first place, the cartoons provided were usually by secondary masters and

246

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

show the defects rather than the good qualities of the Baroque.

The

compositions are commonplace and repeat ad infinitum the same overstrained attitudes; the draperies are voluminous and contorted without reason; the drawing is facile, careless, even incorrect. Then, too, the mosaicists must have worked hastily and merely copied the suggestions of the painters without much initiative of their own, for the color is light in tone and monotonous, taking even less advantage than usual of the possibilities of the medium.

Perhaps the best of this rather dull production is in the central dome where, on account of the vastness of the space, the problem of obtaining sufficient scale, has been very successfully solved. The mosaics are in the lantern, in compartments between the sixteen ribs, and in the pendentives. At the highest point, is God the Father, surrounded by Cherubim. In each compartment in five superimposed rows, are, commencing at the top, angels in adoration, heads of Cherubim in medallions, angels with the instruments of the Passion; Christ, the Virgin, John the Baptist, and

the Twelve Apostles—all in the fourth row—and in the lunettes below, half-figures of various saints and pontiffs. The frieze under the drum has an inscription in blue letters six feet high, on a gold ground:

TV ES

PETRVS ET SVPER HANC PETRAM EDIFICABO ECCLESIAM MEAM ET TIBI DABO CLAVES REGI CCELORVM. This design is the work of the Cavaliere d'Arpino, and the mosaic in the lantern was executed by Provenzale da Cento, 1575-1639. The Four Evangelists in the pendentives from cartoons of Giovanni de Vecchi and Cesare Nebbia were carried out by Provenzale and his pupils. The work was begun under Clement VIII, 1592-1605.

It is unnecessary to describe the mosaics of the aisles and chapels or those of the altar-frontals which are on the whole of an inferior quality; whatever interest they may have is derived from their being a part of the general decorative scheme. Neither should we linger over the few other examples of this period in Rome in Santa Maria di Loreto, San Cesareo, or Santa Maria Scala Coli at the Tre Fontane.

FROM

THE

RENAISSANCE

TO

NINETEENTH

CENTURY

247

We must, however, notice one, perhaps, unfortunate phase in the development of the art which began under the pontificate of Urban VIII, 1623-1644, and continues to our day; the actual copying of well-known paintings in order to preserve them. Urban VIII was not noted for his esthetic sensibilities; it was he who stripped the Pantheon of its bronze tiles to provide material for the famous throne and baldichino of St. Peter's. He had the practical idea of replacing the altar-pieces in St.

Peter's by imperishable copies in mosaic, largely as a precaution against fire. The idea of copying paintings was not entirely a new one; we find it prevalent under the Romans in the famous “Doves” of the Capitoline Museum, the mosaic of the so-called Battle of Issus from Pompeii, and in many others, but such unimaginative and rather vulgar conceptions

had, of course, entirely disappeared in tbe great periods of the art. Now we have the laborious copying of a painting line for line and tone for tone. The thousands of cubes which go to make up such a picture are so carefully joined and so carefully polished that they are no longer apparent, the aim of deceiving the eye is achieved, the tedious processes are hidden, and the effect is that of some brightly-colored surface, such as linoleum. The matching of tones was carried to such lengths that the Vatican workshop claims to have tesserz in over twentyeight thousand different colors—some of the most beautiful of the old mosaics were produced with less than twenty. A considerable number of the works of painters, some famous, some forgotten, have been preserved in this petrified form—Raphael, Caravaggio, Guido Reni, Domenichino, without mentioning others. They may be seen above the altars in St. Peter's and elsewhere, Raphael’s Transfiguration was enlarged

four times so that it might be used as a pendant to Domenichino's Communion of St. Jerome. Portraits in this mode became popular. There is one of Paul V, now in the Borghese Gallery, by Provenzale, which is said to contain seven hundred thousand tesserz. Never, perhaps, has human labor been put to more futile uses. The typical attitude of the eighteenth century

248

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

in regard to mosaic is that of Charles de Brosses who visited the Vatican

Studio in 1739.

After extolling the work there he speaks of the early

Venetian mosaics as “tous fort vilains . . . sans goüt, sans dessin, et méme

- d'un coloris plat, tranchant et désagréable." Throughout the eighteenth century the only workshops for mosaic are those of Venice and Rome. It is interesting to note that the revival

of the Roman school of decorators in the seventeenth century had given Sir Christopher Wren the idea of employing mosaics in St. Paul's, but

this was never accomplished, although the idea has been revived and partially carried out in recent times.

NINETEENTH MODERN

CENTURY MOSAICS

AND

NINETEENTH

CENTURY

AND

Mopern

Mosaics

The Romantic Movement and the new interest in the Middle Ages; the influence upon mosaics.—Mosaics and archzology ; restorations.—Venice: the Salviati—The Vatican Workshop; the Restoration of St. Paul's, etc.—Other nineteenth century restorations in Italy.—The revival of interest in mosaics in Northern Europe.—Russia.—France; Belloni and the “Pompeian School"; Charles Garnier and the Paris Opéra.—Later mosaics.—Germany. —England.—America.—The revival of mosaic as an independent art; influences from the past; its relation to modern painting.— Recent work in Germany, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.— England.—Recent work in America.—The future of mosaic as architectural decoration.

XV.

NINETEENTH MODERN

CENTURY

AND

MOSAICS™

At the beginning of the nineteenth century the workshops at Venice and the Vatican continue their usual routine. The general artistic movements of the first half of the century, Neo-Classicism and Romanticism in their various phases, had little or no direct bearing upon the art. But the enthusiasm for the art of the Middle Ages, and the new archaeological

spirit of the times had a great deal of influence.

This almost passionate

interest in a long-neglected period led, naturally, to a desire to preserve

those things that had survived and prevent further destruction.

But the

exuberant archzologists of what we may call the old-fashioned school did not stop there; they not only wished to preserve, but, often, to complete what was missing. When repairing was necessary, or thought necessary, whole blocks of mosaics were removed, the outlines carelessly taken, and then mechanically replaced in the pseudo-medieval manner. Giovanni Moro,

1822-1858,'^* carried out a good deal of this work in St. Mark's and executed some original mosaics in the atrium, including a Madonna in the lunette on the end wall. His original compositions differ little from his restorations. Both are in a hard, desiccated, lifeless style which attempts unsuccessfully to copy the types and schemes of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Until the nineteenth century, restorations are always in the prevailing style of the period and are easily detected, as, for instance, in the flagrant example of the figure of Pope Felix IV in

the apse of SS. Cosma e Damiano.

In the nineteenth century they are

more insidious and work themselves into the general scheme, tending always to give a hard, smooth, mechanical look. This is well brought out at Monreale where the renovations have given a certain dead character to the whole which could not originally have been there. It is only in very recent years that restorations have been accomplished which can be called worthy of the name. In such cases the mosaics are

252

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

removed carefully in blocks and then replaced without disturbing the original position of the tesserz, as recently, for example, in St. Mark's and in Santa Maria Maggiore.

The output in Venice continues to be of the same character as that of Del Moro. A Last Judgment over the main portal of St. Mark's, done by Liborio Salandri in 1836, is a cold, dull accomplishment, in greatest contrast to the glowing mosaic of Leopoldo dal Pozzo nearby. One of

the most unfortunate periods began in 1867 when the Società Limited Salviati had the exclusive right to “restore” the mosaics of the Basilica. The work was poor in quality, even for the time, paint even being employed. began.

After 1880 a more intelligent period of true conservation

The workshops of Venice continued throughout the nineteenth century, as they still do, to be the center for the actual manufacture of mosaic, and the glass factories of Murano had, practically, a monopoly

for the production of the material used.

In accordance with the ideas

in regard to technique which still largely prevail, the artist or designer having nothing to do with the actual execution, cartoons or designs were

sent here to be “made up,” so to speak, and then exported. Most of the mosaics of Europe and the United States have been produced in this way quality.

which

accounts,

in large

part,

for their

generally

inferior

In Rome, the Vatican atelier had a great opportunity when the disastrous fire of 1823 at San Paolo fuori-le-mura necessitated the complete renewal of the old mosaics of the apse and the triumphal arch.

The work at least follows the lines of the old compositions but the execution is in the usual mechanical

manner

of the time.

Pius IX

ordered the series of medallions of his predecessors which now adorn the nave, and the decoration of the facade (282), a composition in the early

Christian manner, also dates from this period. The special Vatican industry of the copying of painting went on

NINETEENTH

CENTURY

AND

MODERN

MOSAICS

in the same way throughout the whole of the century.

253

It is almost

impossible to distinguish, even if one so desired, between those done in tbe seventeenth century and those of today.

The

unhappy

copy of

Leonardo's Last Supper in the Church of the Minorites at Vienna was

executed by a similar group of workmen in Milan about 1803.

Recently

the Vatican has taken an interest in original work more in harmony with the possibilities of the medium and it has carried out at least one admirable scheme of restoration in Santa Maria Maggiore which may well serve as a model for future efforts of this kind. Its most ambitious

undertaking at the present time is the adornment of the Ottolenghi Mausoleum at Acqui.

Russia ! would seem to be a country peculiarly adapted for the development of the art, but nothing of importance has been done there since the days of St. Sophia at Kiev. There was a tentative revival in the eighteenth century which led to nothing.

In 1839 the mosaics of St.

Sophia at Kiev were rediscovered under the coating of whitewash and soon afterwards, restored. Perhaps the interest thus created inspired the Emperor Nicholas in 1846 to found a studio in Rome for the instruc-

tion of Russian mosaicists. 'This studio was transferred to St. Petersburg (Leningrad) in 1850 and placed under the supervision of the Academy of Fine Arts, another instance of mosaics being treated as merely an adjunct of painting. The result was a number of rather insignificant productions in the Cathedral of St. Isaac, and elsewhere,

the work of craftsmen completely dominated by the ideals of pictorial art peculiar to the more conventional and academic schools of the period. In France,” interest begins with the establishment of a workshop, in the early years of the century, by Belloni, an Italian from the school of the Vatican. He founded an atelier at Paris which was subsidized by the government and had a lingering existence until 1831. Completely dominated by the neo-classic ideas of the Empire, and by the painter,

David, this a£elier naturally had little interest in wall mosaics, but

254

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

produced pavements in the Pompeian style.

The best example is in the

Salle de Melpoméne in the Louvre. Charles

Garnier,

the great architect of the Second

Empire,

was

enthusiastic over the possibilities of mosaic as architectural decoration and planned to use it extensively in the new Opéra. It was actually employed in the vestibule and on the ceiling of the exterior loggia, where there are medallions after cartoons by Garnier himself and M. de Curzon, executed by the Salviati at Venice. The new interest thus created caused the government to establish a school of mosaics which lasted for about

ten years, and was responsible for the apse of the Panthéon and other work. This atelier was organized under the direction of Edouard Gerspach whose little book, La Mosaique, had done so much to stimulate a new interest in the art. He was sent to Rome to choose materials and the craftsmen from the Vatican workshop whom Pope Pius IX authorized to go to Paris. Since that time there have been a number of private workshops in France. The apse of the Panthéon has the rather grandiose subject of Christ Revealing to the Angel of France the Destinies of Her People; figures on a gold ground, inspired by the old Ravenna or Roman apses, hard and mechanical in execution like the other mosaics of the period. Other examples include the apse of the Madeleine, the vaulting of the main stair-case of the Louvre, and the work in the New Cathedral of Marseilles, where Revoil, the architect, who also designed the mosaics, was especially inspired by the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia. Only the mosaics of the portico were completed. The work was executed by the

Salviati. Additional mosaics which, in a way, form a transition from mid-

nineteenth century to modern work, are those on the tomb of Pasteur by Luc-Olivier Merson, those in Nótre-Dame

de Fourviéres at Lyons

and the Basilica at Lourdes, not to mention the rather uninspired work at Sacré-Ceur in Paris. At Sacré-Coeur we have Christ in Glory surrounded by St. Michael, the Virgin, and Joan of Arc; to the left, three

NINETEENTH

CENTURY

AND

MODERN

MOSAICS

255

scenes from the history of France. The work was begun in 1912 by Henri-Marcel Magne and Luc-Olivier Merson and finished in 1923. The

frieze of the Grand Palais was designed and installed by Fournier in 1900, a not unsuccessful scheme, using only three tones against a uniform background of red.

In Germany during the Romantic period, interest was revived in mosaic along with the rest of the art of the Middle Ages. We have already seen that in 1844, Frederick William IV of Prussia bought the apse of San Michele in Affricisco in Ravenna. Although Venice was almost the sole source for material, beginning with the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Germany became an important center. Nineteenth-century German work was, perhaps, even more archzological in character than elsewhere. The actual execution was, as a rule, done by Italians in the usual routine way, and the subjects, religious themes inspired by earlier Italian mosaics, or by national history. The subjects are treated in the rather cold, naturalistic manner characteristic of the general run of academic painting of the time, and show the influence of the Nazarene school. We have already noted Schaper's work in the dome of Aix-la-Chapelle, restored in 1869, in our discussion of ninth-century mosaics. The Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin has a vast ensemble which compares in area with St. Mark's or Monreale, dull in conception and execution. It would be tedious to describe the work in the Erlóserkirche at Homburg, in the Schlosskapelle at Posen, in the Wartburg, and elsewhere. On the west facade of the Cathedral of Erfurt there is a colossal figure of the Virgin on a gold ground, executed in 1870. The historical scenes on the facade of the Maximilianeum at Munich, from paintings by K. von Piloty, were not done until 1902, but they have all the worst faults of the nineteenth century and

are out of character with the architecture.

The same may be said for

the mosaics, 1894, of the pediments of the National Theatre of Munich, which replace frescoes by Schwanthaler.

256

A HISTORY

England

fares

no better

than

OF MOSAICS

the

other

countries

of Northern

Europe. A studio was installed for a time in the South Kensington Museum and was responsible for a series of portraits copied from paintings by British artists. L. J. Poynter did the cartoons for the St. George of the Houses of Parliament, Clayton and Bell those of the Guard's Chapel in St. James Park, and also a series of mosaic pictures in the Cathedral of Chester. They exhibit the usual failings of “revival mosaics” —smoothly polished surfaces with the tessere so close together that the joints cannot be distinguished, and designs which are conceived with no feeling for the medium, but only suggest the pictorial qualities suitable to painting. The work is no better or no worse than contemporary productions in France or Germany. With the exception of the work at South Kensington, it was all executed away from the spot, on paper,

by foreign firms.

In this respect, the mosaics of the chapel for the school

at Giggleswick, by T. G. Jackson, are better, as they were done in situ, and are treated more broadly in true mosaic fashion. Sir Christopher Wren, as we know, had once thought of embellishing St. Paul's with mosaics. From 1863 to 1892 this idea was partially carried out. The eight spandrels of the dome contain the Four Evangelists, designed by Watts, and Four Apostles by Alfred Stevens. The apse, the sanctuary bay, and the choir also have mosaics, so that this ensemble is one of the most pretentious of the nineteenth century. It may be said that the designs are more successful than other contemporary works in England, but the technical execution leaves much to be desired. In the first two decades after the Civil War, American culture turned back to its European sources. This was the period of the adaptation or even mere copying of the various European styles of architecture, Romanesque, Gothic, and Renaissance, together with their characteristic decorative forms. Artists like John La Farge, of wide sympathies and thorough training in the modes of expression of the Old World, helped to create a new interest in a more lavish decoration and possibilities of

color in keeping with the more sumptuous character of the buildings

NINETEENTH

CENTURY

AND

MODERN

MOSAICS

257

which were then being erected, especially in regard to mural painting and stained glass. Mosaics were also introduced during this period of a general borrowing from Europe, but it must be said that nineteenthcentury America showed even less interest in this medium than contemporary Europe, and the work has the usual faults which we have already discussed—a mechanical technique, inspiration and execution completely divorced, designs of painters carried out by workmen, not craftsmen. In fact, most of the actual work was executed in Italy from American cartoons and this is, generally speaking, true of all but the most recent output.

The Library of Congress at Washington has the well-known Minerva of Peace designed by Elihu Vedder, and the panels of History and Law by Frederick Dielman, which do not lack a certain inspiration but are marred by an indifferent execution. We may include with these American mosaics those (283) in the apse of the American Church of St. Paul in Rome, designed by Sir Edward Burne-Jones—Pre-Raphaelite in style

and rather lifelessly carried out.

The more or less conventional and

older religious forms inspired Edwin H. Blashfield in his work in St. Matthews Church, also in Washington, and we find this same influence in the work of the son of John La Farge in the National Catholic Cathedral. Bancel La Farge also designed the apse of Trinity College Chapel at Washington. Other religious mosaics in this same category are those in All-Saints Church at Richmond, Virginia, and in the two Presbyterian churches at Rochester, New York. In the Baptistery of the Church of the Holy Redeemer at Detroit there are mosaics (284) designed by Rudolf Scheffler which are reminiscent of the style of the early Venetians. The New Cathedral at St. Louis is in process of receiving the most extensive series of mosaics which have been attempted in America up to the present time. The church is Byzantine in style and the mosaics (285) cover the dome, the pendentives and the vaults, and in general, both in scheme and manner, they follow the vast Sicilian decorations of the twelfth century. Other recent religious mosaics are

258

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

those of St. Bartholomew's in New York (286), and the more purely decorative work in the Temple Emmanuel in the same city, both designed

by Hildreth Meiere.!*" A number of public buildings in America besides the Library of Congress have received a certain amount of mosaic decoration along conventional lines, such as the State Capitols at St. Paul and at Des Moines, and Leland Stanford University in California. More recently the frontal

colonnade of the Detroit Public Library * has been embellished with a series representing the Seven Ages according to Shakespeare, designed by F. J. Wiley in the style of the Italian Renaissance. It is interesting to note that they are composed of cubes of baked enamelled pottery instead of the usual glass or marble tesserz. The naturalism of nineteenth-century art was not suited to the peculiarities of the processes of mosaic, and this, combined with the prevalent mechanical execution, accounts for much of its poor quality. All sense of the material quality of the medium has been lost. The revolutionary artistic movements of the latter part of the century, Impressionism, Post Impressionism, the work of Cézanne, Gaugin, Van Gogh, the breaking away from mere naturalism and the new interest in abstract form, study of the basic principles of design, the reaction against mechanical processes and interest in the inherent qualities of special

mediums—all

these factors have

had

a far-reaching influence

upon

mosaic. Some of the most recent work shows a sincere attempt to revive it as an independent art, to rediscover the secret of its success in the past. This has led in some cases to examples of more or less successful archaism, work in which the spirit as well as the technique of the older mosaics has been well understood and reproduced; others have gone farther and used this knowledge as the basis for real inspiration and originality. There is, perhaps, a tendency for a too direct reversion to the past; for merely scientific copying of even the best work leads to barren results. On the whole the public has shown little interest in the art, and its

possibilities as architectural decoration have hardly been touched upon.

NINETEENTH

CENTURY

AND

This may be partly due to what M.

MODERN

Dordoré

MOSAICS

calls an “archaism”

259

in

taste, the habit of associating certain techniques entirely with the periods in which they had their greatest development. Thus, mosaics are considered Byzantine, just as pastels are often thought of as typically of

the eighteenth century, or stained glass as being typically medizval. This point of view prevents the adaptation of interesting processes to new needs. There is no technique which is not independent of a style or a period. Mosaics are not necessarily Early Christian or medizval, nor need their use be confined exclusively to ecclesiastical decoration. Discussing contemporary mosaics in an inclusive way, in a general

review of this kind, one runs the risk of omitting works that have not been brought to one's attention, or, of perhaps overemphasizing or underrating others. Here, an attempt is made to describe briefly certain examples in regard to their importance as contributions to a living art, and without pretending that the list is complete.

The best of the recent work in France !** seems to show the beginnings of a true renascence.

There have been interesting experiments

with new materials and processes, especially the combination of tessere with flat expanses of gilded or colored cement, in place of the older

method of covering the entire surface with cubes.

Subjects show a

stylization and simplification suitable to the material without servile, archaistic copying. We may mention the baptismal fonts of Maurice

Denis in the church of St. Paul at Geneva, as well as his work in the Cathedral of Quimper. Also, the work of Decóte, Gaudin, Labouret, Guilbert-Martin, Louis Bouquet, and the Swiss artist, Alexandre Cingria in a number of churches and oratories. The Stations of the Cross by the Brothers Mauméjean in the Sanctuaire de Sainte-Thérése de l'Enfant Jesus at Paris (287) show originality and a good understanding of the medium.

Germany,'” especially Munich, has been the center of an interesting group of artists in this modern revival.

Johan Thorn Prikker has been

260

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

inspired by the work of the first centuries, especially Early Christian symbolism which he has treated as abstract decoration in the Altkatholischen Kirche at Essen, the Hague, and elsewhere (288); Emile Nolde and Prince Max von Hohenlohe also use the principles of Early

Christian art in a modernistic way.

Others are Karl Caspar, Max Pech-

stein, Ewald Duellberg (289) and César Klein. On the tower of the Frauen-Friedenskirche at Frankfurt am Main there is a colossal figure of the Virgin in high relief covered with mosaic (290). It was probably inspired by the medieval work at Marienwerder.

In Germany a good deal of interest has also been shown in the use of mosaic as secular decoration in private houses, in hotels and office buildings. One example, of modernistic design, is the work of César Klein in the circular Roman bath of the Excelsior Hotel, Berlin. Even ocean liners have not been immune and the panels of aquatic life on a silver ground (291), designed by Maria May for the ball-room of the S. S. Bremen, are among the most striking of modern mosaics. The

Swedish liner “Kungsholm” also has interesting mosaics. In Denmark, Joakim Skovgaard has designed church mosaics in Copenhagen in a more conventional manner, executed by Italian workmen. In the Town Hall of Stockholm, Einar Forseth has portrayed scenes from Swedish history (292). In these, he attempts to create an historical, native style by going back to earlier examples of national art. They are treated broadly and simply in a manner not unlike the twelíthcentury mosaics of Venice and Sicily, but unfortunately the execution is rather hard and mechanical. Emanuel Vigeland, the noted Norwegian

sculptor, has done mosaics which show a good deal of personal religious feeling, in a style not unlike that of the Kahrie Djami. In Holland, Molkenboer's mosaics for the church of St. Antonius at Schevenigen show the influence of modern French work. In Serbia there has been a notable revival, especially in the Cathedral of Topola, near Belgrade. This work is largely archzological in character, going back to the earlier native traditions when the pre-

NINETEENTH

CENTURY

AND

MODERN

MOSAICS

261

dominating influences were Byzantine, and the Cathedral shows a com-

plete Byzantine scheme of the eleventh century, influenced by the style of the native frescoes.

In England, a Russian, Boris Anrep !* has done some very interesting mosaics showing a thorough knowledge of the principles of the technique which he uses in a personal way. A pavement (293) done by him for a private house in London portrays in a series of scenes, the very

modern theme of the life of a lady of fashion in the year 1922—medallions on a ground of dark green marble. Treated in a very modernistic manner, he combines great inventiveness with an excellent sense of style. Other works by Anrep include pavements in the Tate Gallery and in

the National Gallery (294) and an apse at the Military College, Sandhurst.

The most extensive work now going on in England is that in

Westminster Cathedral, London.

The apse, the sanctuary of the Lady

Chapel and the triumphal arch of the nave have already been finished.

The style may be described as pseudo-medizval and does not show any great distinction. We have already touched upon the religious mosaics in America.

Secular work?” has, on the whole, been less hampered by convention, and if it is not always eminently successful, it at least shows a striving to adapt itself to its modern architectural setting. Some of the work,

moreover, is excellent both in design and execution.

In our present-day

buildings of concrete mosaic is especially appropriate as, like the old work, it becomes a part of the actual structure. Among the ever-increasing number of contemporary examples we may mention by way of illustration the panels of chinoiserie design in the Oriental Theatre at Chicago by Rudolph Scheffler, and the modernistic panels for the Avalon Theatre in the same city, designed by Charles L. Morgan. The Fisher Building and the MacCabees Building at Detroit, the Rochester Savings Bank at Rochester, New York (295), the International Telephone and Telegraph Building in New York (296), and a number of others have used mosaics successfully either in wall panels or on the vaults.

262

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Perhaps Canada may boast of one of the finest achievements to date on

this continent, the vaults (297) of the entrance lobby of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Building in Ottawa, designed by Barry Faulkner. In the portico of the Currier Gallery of Art at Manchester, New Hampshire, there are mosaics which were designed and executed by Salvatore Lascari in 1928. Here we have a series of figures symbolic

of different epochs of civilization.

The design follows the older tradi-

tions but the execution shows an understanding of the inherent qualities of the medium which raises it well above the usual American product. Among the more recent notable American mosaics are the murals

in the Union Terminal Station at Cincinnati (298), the ceilings in the Ohio State Office Building at Columbus, the reception room in the Irving Trust Building, New York (299) and Barry Faulkner's murals at Rocke-

feller Center (300). Modern architecture, especially in Northern Europe and America,

has entered upon a new development, emerging from the slough of servile copying and the often unintelligent adoption of outward forms ill-suited to the present day. Science, the strides made by engineering, have made possible our soaring sky-scrapers of steel and concrete and are revolutionizing all construction. There is an emphasis upon fundamentals, upon planes and masses, which has often the quality of great art in its dynamic simplicity, and together with this, a decoration is evolving which is not merely a veneer of historical detail, but the logical culmination of the structure itself, just as it was in the creative periods of the past. If mosaics are to play a part in this regeneration, few will stop to consider whether they are archzologically correct or not. They will look, rather, for a rebirth of the spirit of the enduring work of the great periods, of that happy combination of living design with rich, brilliant, and harmonious color which will always impress us at Ravenna or Cefalü.

NOTES

In these notes are given specific reference to all the important sources and supplementary information as well as many inscriptions and quotations.

NOTES The word Mosaic is probably derived from the Greek Movostog (belonging to the Muses), Latin Musivum. 1Professor

Hamlin

in the Encyclopedia

Britannica

(14th ed., vol.

15, p. 833)

defines mosaic as an outgrowth of inlay. ‘When the area of such inlays is greater than the exposed area of the original material, which thus becomes merely a base and frame to hold the pieces of inlay, the result may be called mosaic".

On the origin of mosaic see Gauckler, article Opus Musivum, in Daremberg et Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités, vol. III, Paris, 1877 et. seq., and O. M. Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archsology, Oxford, 1911, p. 325ff. “La premiere fois qu'un homme se divertit, sur la terre ou la sable, à disposer des cailloux, des coquillages, des noyaux de fruits, en suivant un ordre préconcu, la mosaique

naquit."

Léon Dordoré, in L'Amour

de l'Art, April,

1928.

For Sumerian mosaics see C. Leonard Woolley, The Development of Sumerian Art, London, 1935, pp. 41 ff, 68, 72, 89. The buildings at Warka are published in the Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,

Phil-Hist.

Klasse

(Ausgraben

in

Uruk-Warka),

Nos.

4,

6,

7,

1929-1934. The temple of A-anni-padda is described in Ur Excavations, vol. I, al 'Ubaid, publ. by the British Museum and the Philadelphia Museum. For Mexican mosaics see M. H. Saville, Turquais Mosaic Art in Ancient Mexico, Contribution from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, vol. VI, New York, 1922, with excellent illustrations and a good

bibliography. Bibliography

Also, J. A. Mason, Turquoise Mosaic from Northern Mexico, from the Pennsylvania Museum,

Jan.,

1929, pp.

157-175;

for

the mosaic from Chichen Itzá see E. H. Morris, The Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itzá, Carnegie Institute, Washington, D. C., 1931 (colored plate). Mexican mosaics may be seen in the Museum of the American Indian, New

York; the Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Mass.; the State Natural History Museum, Vienna; the Ethnographic Museum, Rome and the British Museum. 3 Burlington Magazine, 1923, p. 272. L. March Phillips in his Form and Colour (London, 1915) makes interesting and stimulating comments in regard to the zsthetic qualities of mosaic. He considers that the inherent quality —color—is essentially sensuous, mystical and

Eastern

while

form

and

structure

are

essentially

Western

(Greek).

266

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Where mosaic has been used most successfully as, for example, in St. Mark's, it has been used structurally and controls the architecture. “Domes, vaults, and apses combine to display the richness and softness of the material.” They are purposely heavy with blunt edges and “they are there because they have been chosen by the mosaic as its own fitting vehicle." *Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis, Hanover, 1878, I, p. 289.

in Monumenta

Germaniae

Historica,

“Article Mosaic in Encycl. Brit., XIV ed.; Gerspach, La Mosaique, Paris, 1891, p.238 ff., and in Gazette des B-Arts, 1880, p.145 ff.; Saccardo, Les Mosaiques de Saint-Marc à Venise, Venice, 1897, p.175 ff.; Rioli, Dell'artifici o pratico dei mosaici antichi e moderni, Palermo, 1870; G. Antonelli, Sud modo di tagliare ed applicare il mosaico, Venice, 1858; Milanesi, Del arte del vetro pel mosaico

(XVI

century), reprinted

Bologna,

1864;

Marg.

Van

Berchem

and E. Clouzot, Mosaiques chrétiennes, Geneva, 1924, p.LIX ff.; A. Agazzi, Il mosaico in Italia, Milan, 1926, p.81 ff.; G. A. Wagner, Mosaic, Its Material and Technique, in The Western Architect, April, 1927. For the restoration and conservation of mosaics see: Mrs. R. E. M. Wheeler,

Experiment in Removing a Fragment of a Roman Pavement, in Museums Journal, July, 1933; and W. E. Mayes, Removing a Roman Pavement, in

ibid., August, 1933; E. H. Swift, Byzantine Gold Mosaic, in Am. Journal of Archeol., Liberiana

1934; Biagio Biagetti, Splendori di arte antica nella Basilica rinnovelati dal Sommo Pontefice Pio XI, in L'Ilustrazione

Vaticana, nos. 5 and 6, 1931. 5Saccardo, of.cit., p.77.

$G. Boni, Il Duomo di Parenzo e suoi mosaici, in Archivio storico dell'arte, 1894, pp.rro-130; Walter S. George, The Church of Saint Eirene at Constantinople, London,

1912, p.52; Marg. van Berchem,

The Mosaics of the Dome

of the

Rock at Jerusalem and of the Great Mosque at Damascus, (reprinted from K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture, Oxford, 1932) pp. 219 and 245. "Barbet de Jouy, Les mosaiques chrétiennes des basiliques et églises de Rome, Paris, 1857, p.IX. *Published by Prof. D. M. Robinson in the A.C. L. S. Bulletin, 1932.

Pebble mosaics were used by the Romans. A pavement from a house on the Palatine, probably of Republican times, was “not composed of marble but of pebbles from the Umbrian confluents of tbe Tiber, red, yellow, green and black limestones, grouped so as to produce a polychromatic effect. . . ." (Quoted from a report by Boni in E. Strong, Art in Ancient Rome, London, 1929, vol.II, p.33 ff.)

NOTES

267

°Gauckler, op.cst.; Berchem and Clouzot, of.cit., p.LIX ; C. Cecchelli, Roman Mosaics, (transl. by E. Savinio) in Formes, 1930; R. Hinks, Roman Carpets, in Architectural Review, 1931.

The Romans also had a coarser and simpler kind of pavement than the one to which they gave the name opus tessellatum, called opus signium, because it was supposed to have been first used at Signia. It was composed of a base of powdered brick, or tile, and chalk, upon which simple geometric de-

signs were formed by inserting pebbles or white marble tessere. tiful examples have been recently uncovered at Herculaneum.

Some beau-

19B. Nogara, 1 mosaici antichi conservati nel palazzi del Vaticano e del Laterano,

Milan, 191ro. 11See A. Kisa, Das Glas im Altertume, Leipzig, 1908. 12/nventaire des mosaiques de la Gaule et de l'Afrique, Paris, 1909; Dalton, of.cit., p.424 ff.; Cabrol, Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne, article Afrique, sec-

tion xxv; Gauckler, o2.cit.; A. Blanchet, La mosaique, Paris, 1928, p.28 ff. and bibliography. Other references for pavement mosaics in general will be found in the bibliography at the end of this volume. 15]Dalton, op.cit., p.421 ff. For

a list of pavements

Römische

Quartalshrift,

in Palestine

see A.

Baumstark,

X Xa, 1906, pp.139-141.

Palestinensia,

in

For the mosaic found at

Kabr Hiram, near Tyre, and now in the Louvre see Renan, Mission de Phénecie, Paris, 1864. For the map mosaic at Madaba see A. Schulten, Die

Mosaikkarte von Madaba, Mosaik

von Madaba,

Berlin, 1900 and A. Jacoby, Das geographische

Leipzig, 1905.

Interesting pavements have been recently uncovered at Jerash in Transjordania under the auspices of the British School of Architecture at Jerusalem,

and Yale University. These include one with a border of bold scrolls interspersed with animals, within which there is a river scene and bird’s-eye views of towns. Another pavement from a synagogue shows the Ark with many

small

figures of animals

in processions.

More

recently

(1933)

two

pavements have been discovered by Princeton University at Daphne, the suburb of ancient Antioch, one of which, dating from the third or the fourth century, shows an elaborate landscape bordered by a frieze which is “virtually a pictorial atlas of Daphne." For the sixth century mosaics at Jerash see: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1930, pp.13 ff., and J. W. Crowfoot, Churches at Jerash,

Jerusalem, 1931; M. S. Briggs, Newly Discovered Syrian Mosaics, in Burlington Mag.,

1931.

268

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS For the mosaics of Antioch see C. R. Morey, Excavation of Antioch-on-theOronies, in Parnassus, May, 1935. The excavations here which are still in progress are undertaken jointly by the University of Princeton, the Museums of Baltimore and Worcester and the Musées Nationales de France. Most of the mosaics are still in situ but a few have been removed to the museums. There is a Judgement of Paris in the Louvre, a Venus and Adonis at Princeton, a Bacchus and Hercules at Worcester and two dancing figures at Baltimore.

MP. Gauckler, Le domaine des Laberti à Uthina, in Mon.Piot., III (1896), p.177

ff., Pls. XX-XXIII. 15A. Ballu, Les ruines de Timgad, Paris, 1911. 165, Aurigemma, J mosaici di Zliten, Rome-Milan, 1926; ibid, "In a Roman Villa at Zliten,"

in Art

and

Archsology,

23,

1927, pp.161-169,

also articles

in

Dedalo, 1924, pp.197-219, 333-361, 397-414. “'Toesca, op.cit., I, p.61 and note 61, p.78; O. Fasiolo, J Mosaici di Aquileia, Rome, 1915. Y Dalton, of.cit., p.328, note 2.

I*C. Ricci, Appunti per la storia di mosaico, in Bollettino d'Arte, 1914, p.273 ff. See, also, C. Ceccheli, Origine del mosaico parietale Cristiano, in Architettura € Arti decorative, 1922.

Fragments of what were probably wall mosaics have been found at Zliten (Aurigemma, op.cit., p.42 ff.) showing scrolls and animals, and also in the Terme of Leptis Magna where we find geometric designs, festoons and bunches of grapes

(P. Romanelli, Leptis Magna,

Rome,

1925).

The

vault

of the Mithrzum below the church of San Clemente at Rome, probably dating from the third century, shows traces of mosaics. Van Berchem and Clouzot, op.cit., PXIX. "E, Müntz, Bulletin et Memoires de la Soc. Nat. des Antiquaries de France, VI série, ii,1891, PP.294-321; J. B. de Rossi, Roma sotteranea, iii, pp.582, 592-3; Gerspach, op.cit., pp.36 and 43; Dalton, op.cit., p.331.

22The Roman mosaics have been well photographed by Alinari, Anderson, Brogi and others. General works covering all the mosaics through the ninth century are: J. B. de Rossi, Musaici cristiani e saggi dei pavimenti delle chiese di Roma anteriori al Secolo XV, Rome, 1870-1893; J. Wilpert, Die römischen Mosaiken und Malereien der Christlichen Bauten vom IV bis XIII Jahrhun-

dert, Freiburg, 1917 (contains the only complete series of colored reproductions);

M.

Van

Berchem

and

E.

Clouzot,

op.cit.

(fully

illustrated);

A.

Venturi, Musaici cristiani in Roma, Rome, 1925. Briefer references in A. Venturi, Storia dell'arte italiana, Milan, 1904 et seq.; Dalton, o2.cit. p.332 ff.; Diehl, Manuel, I, p.347 ff.; Pératé in Michel, Histoire de l'art, vol.I, Paris, 1905. Gerspach, op.cit.; Ἐς X. Kraus, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst, Freiburg, 1896; O. Wulff, Altchristliche und byzan-

NOTES

269

tinische Kunst, 2 vols., Berlin, 1914-1918, I, p.313 ff.; K. M. Kaufmann, Handbuch der christlichen Archaologie, 3d ed., Paderborn, 1922; A. L. Frothingham, The Monuments of Christian Rome, new ed. New York, 1925; W. Lowrie, Monuments of the Early Church, New York, 1923; P. Toesca, Storia dell'arte italiana, Turin, 1915 et seq.; R. Van Marle, La peinture romaine aw moyen-age, Strassburg, 1921; ibid, The Development of the Italian Schools of Painting, The Hague, vol x, 1923. The engravings in Ciampini's Vetera Monimenta etc., Rome 1690, 1697, although sometimes inaccurate, are valuable as showing the condition of the mosaics in the seventeenth century and for reproductions of a number of examples which have been since lost. **For the Eastern elements in Early Christian art see: Strzygowski, Orient oder Rom, Leipzig, 1901, ibid., Ursprung der Christlichen Kunst, Leipzig, 1920 (translated with notes by Dalton under the title, East Christian Art, Oxford, 1925) ; Ainaloff, Hellenistic Origins of Byzantine Art (Russian), Leningrad, 1900; De Vogüé, La Syrie Centrale, Paris, 1860-61 (a pioneer in this field but still of value). Among the more general summaries are: L'art byzantin by G. Millet in Michel, of.cit., vol.I.; Diehl, Manuel d'art byzantin, 2d ed., Paris, 1925, vol.I, p.15 ff., and ibid, Les origines orientales de l'art byzantin, in L'Amour de l'Art, 1924; Dalton, op.cit., pp.46-74; Toesca, op.cit., I, p.156

ff; W. Neuss, Die Kunst der alten Christen, Augsburg,

1926;

G. Duthuit,

Byzance et l'art du XII siecle, Paris, 1926. Emphasizing the Western or Roman elements are: Wickhoff, Die Wiener Genisis, Vienna,1895; Riegl, Die spütrómische Kunstindustrie, Vienna (new edition, 1927), ıg01; ibid. Stilfragen, Berlin, 1893; Rivoira, Le origini dell’archittetura lombarda,

Rome, rgor (translated by G. McN. Rushforth under title, Lombardic Architecture: its origin and Bisanzio, Rome, 1930.

development,

London,

1910);

G.

Galassi,

Roma

o

See also the stimulating essay by C. R. Morey, The Sources of Medisval Style, in The Art Bulletin, 1924. For a protest against an over-emphasis upon Oriental influences see L. Bréhier,

Orient ou Byzance?, in Revue archéologigque, V, 1907, pp. 396 ff.; and G. Millet, Byzance et non l'Orient, in ibid. XI, 1908, pp.171 ff. ^G. Millet, Recherches sur l'iconographie de l'Évangile, Paris, 1916.

?5W. de Gruneisen, Le portrait.

:

Traditions hellenistiques et influences orientales,

Rome, 1911; G. Millet, Portraits bizantins, in Rev. de l'art chrétien, 1911.

?*Dalton, of.cit., p.623; Garrucci, Storia dell'arte cristiana, etc., Prato, 1872-80, Vol. VI, Pl. 433-5. Weir Schultz, The Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem, London, 1910. ?* Venturi, Storia, vol.1; ibid, Musaici cristiani, p.7 ff.; Van Berchem and Clouzot, op.cit., p.ı ff.; Michel (Pératé), of.cit., voll, p.39 ff.; Wilpert, op.cit. I,

270

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

p.272 ff.; Toesca, op.cit., Y, p.166; Van Marle, Italian Schools, etc., I, p.7 ff.;

Dalton, of.cit., p.332; A. Schmarzow, Der Kuppelraum von S. C. in Rom, Leipzig, 1904; G. B. de Rossi, Della decorazione interna del Mausoleo Constantiniano della via Nomentana, appellato Sta. Costanza, in Bollett. dell'Instit. di Corresp. Archeol., 1889, p. 79 ff.; C. B. Kunstle, Das Mausoleum von Sta. C. und seine Mosaiken nach De Rossi, in Rom. Quartalschrift, 1890, p.12 ; F. Jubaru, La decorazione bacchica del mausoleo di Santa Costanza, in Il’ Arte, 1904, p.467 ff.; R. Michel, Die Mosaiken von Santa Costanza, Leipzig, 1912.

2905.cit., vol.T. Francesco d'Ollanda, a Dutch artist, made a drawing in the sixteenth century, now in the Escurial, which was engraved by Bartoli, and the

lower part reproduced by Ciampini. There are sketches of about the same date in the Library of St. Mark at Venice, and descriptions and sketches by Pompeo Ugonio in the Library of Ferrara. (See Müntz, Revwe archéologique,

XXXV, 1878, p.357.) 3005 cit. 9105.cit. *zMüntz, art.cit., in Rev. archéol. 3SGeneral references as for Santa Costanza and G.B.de Rossi, of.cit., pp.ı3 and 14; L. Lefort, La mosaique de Ste. Pudentienne à Rome, in Rev. archéol. II, series XVII, X

1874, p.96; ibid in Nuovo Bollet. d'archeol. crist., 1896, p.174

ff. ; P. Crostarosa in idem, 1895, p.58; H. Grisar in Civiltá Cattolica, vol. III, 1895, p.272 and vol. XII, 1897, p.473. A drawing by Ciaconio (Bibl. Vat.; cod.vat., 5407) made in 1595 before the apse was cut down shows the lower

part of the composition.

This is reproduced by Van Berchem and Clouzot

(op.cit., p.64).

**De Rossi, op.cit. ; Ainaloff, Hellenistic Origins, p.282 ff. ; Toesca, op.cit., I, p.168. söWilpert, op.cit. *tDe Rossi, op.cit. *'Venturi, Storia, II, p.243, and Musaict cristiani, p.18; Dalton, of.cit., p.341; Wilpert, op.cit., I, p.247 ff. ; Michel, of.cit., I, p.46; Toesca, 0of.cit., I, p.167 ff.;

Van Berchem and Clouzot, of.cit., p.9 fl. and p.103 ft. *5General references as before. For the extensive early bibliography which has been largely superseded or incorporated in later works see Dalton, op.cit., p.338, note 1.

Ainaloff (Journal etc., 1895, p.94 ff.), Venturi (Storia, I, p.266), and Richter, (J. P. Richter and A. C. Taylor, The Golden Age of Classical Christian Art,

London, 1904) consider the mosaics of the nave and the triumphal arch contemporary, rejecting De Rossi's theory that the nave was done under Liberius and the arch under Sixtus III. Ainaloff considers that all the work was

executed for Sixtus (fifth century), but Richter would place it in the second or the

beginning

of the

third

century,

claiming

that

work

of such

high

NOTES

271

quality and direct classical inspiration is beyond the powers of fifth-century decadence. Details of later character he considers due to restoration. Wilpert (op.cit., vol.I, p.414 ff.) gives the nave to Liberius and the arch to Sixtus III. Toesca (op.cit., vol.I, p.175) considers that all the mosaics are of the time of Sixtus III or a little earlier. The mosaics are fully illustrated in the works cited by Richter and Taylor, Van Berchem and Clouzot, and in the admirable colored plates of Wilpert. There is an excellent summary

op.cit., pp.415-419.

of Ainaloff's article in Richter and Taylor,

In addition to the above references see: F. Blanchino,

De Sacris immaginibus musivi operis

a S. Syxto Papa III etc., Rome,

1727;

O. Tozzi, Storia della basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, 1904; S. Scaglia, I musaici antiche della basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, 1910; Ὁ. Biasiotti in Bollet.d' Arte, 1914 p.73 ff.; B. Biagetti, art.cit.; Paolo

Muratoff, La pittura bizantina, Rome, (no date), p.56 seq. and p.61 seq.

The

triumphal arch has been admirably restored by Commendatore Biagetti. ** General references as before and Van Marle, La peinture romaine, p.14; Venturi,

Musaici cristiani, p.17; Van Berchem and Clouzot, of.cit., p.79 ff. “Op.cit., vol.I,p.191, Pls.XLVII and XLVIII. *1General references as before and E. Müntz in Revue de l'art chrétien, vol.IX, 1898, pp.1 and 108; Van Berchem and Clouzot, op.cit., p.87 ff. *2For these inscriptions see Van Berchem and Clouzot, of.cit. The one at the top reads: TEODOSIVS CEPIT PERFECIT ONORIVS AVLAM DOCTORIS MVNDI SACRATVM CORPORE PAVLI. “Theodosius began, Honorius completed the temple, sanctified by the body of Paul, the doctor of the world." On the curve of the arch we have: PLACIDE PIA MENS OPERIS DECVS HOMNE PATERNI GAVDET PONTIFICIS STUDIO SPLENDERE LEONIS. “The pious soul of Placidia rejoices in the splendor which the interest of the pontif Leo adds to the work of her father." Below St. Paul, at the left:

PERSEQVITVR DVM VASA DEI FIT PAVLUS HONORIS VAS SE DELECTVM GENTIBVS ESSE PROBAT. *While he pursues the elect of God, Paul becomes a vessel of election and

proves to the Gentiles that God has chosen him as such." Below St. Peter: VOCE DEI FIS PETRE DEI PETRA CULMEN HONORIS AVLE CELESTIS SPLENDOR ET HOMNE DECVS. "Peter! Be to the voice of God, the rock of God, the culmination of honor, all splendor and glory of the celestial court."

272

^ A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

*8Wilpert, op.cit., I, p.247, ff; Van Berchem and Clouzot, of.cit., p.9 and p.103 ff.;

Michel, 0f.cit., I, p.46; Venturi, Storia, I, p.246, and Musaici cristieni, p.18; Toesca, op.cit., I, p.167; Clausse, Basiliques et mosaiques chrétiennes, Paris, 1893, p.184. In the tympana below the vault there were standing figures of the Evangelists with their symbols above. These were destroyed in the

seventeenth century but are known from an engraving in Ciampini (of.cit., II, tav. LX XV.) “General references as before and Van Marle, Italian Schools, I, p.119 ff; C. R. Morey, Lost Mosaics and Frescoes of Rome of the Mediseval Period, Prince-

ton-Oxford, 1915, p.35

ff. ; Muratoff, of.cit., p.67.

4W, Lowrie, Monuments of the Early Church, new ed., New York, 1923, A. L. Frothingham, The Monuments of Christian Rome, new ed. New 1925, p.74. I find no stylistic evidence for this assumption. See (op.cit., Y, note 92, p.238) who compares these types with the bronze of a Byzantine emperor at Barletta.

p.311; York, Toesca statue

46General references as before, especially Van Berchem and Clouzot, of.cit., p.189 ff.; Toesca, op.cit., I, p.221. “το p.cit., TI, PLXXVIII. **C. R. Morey, op.cit. ; E. Müntz, The Lost Mosaics of Rome, in American Journal

of Archsology, 1886, p.295 ff.; de Rossi op.cit., Notizie bibliografiche dei musaici perduti, in the Introduction. *9 Michel, 02.cit., I, p.42; Wilpert, op.cit., I, p.362 and Fig. 114. The composition of the apse is typical of early Roman

work from the apse

of SS. Cosma e Damiano onward, the figures of Innocent III and the Roman Church on either side of the Lamb in the lower band being, clearly, interpola-

tions of the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. The whole apse may have been redone under Innocent III, preserving the older composition as in the cases of the apses of the Lateran and Santa Maria Maggiore a century later (see note 133). ‘Wilpert, op.cit., I, p.213, and ibid, La decorazione della Basilica Lateranense, in Riv. di Archeol. Christiana, 1921.

"IDrawings, Bibl.Vat., Codex 5407; reproductions in Ciampini, op.cit., Pl. LXXVII; Garrucci, of.cit., IV, Pl.240; H. Grisar, Roma alla fine del mondo antico, Rome, 1908, p.89; G.B.de Rossi in Bollet. di archeol. crist., series II, vol.II, 1871, pp.5 and 41; A. Mufioz, Sant'Agata dei Goti, Rome, 1923. "ZThe mosaics of Ravenna have been well photographed by Alinari, Andersoft,

Corrado Ricci and others.

General descriptions of all the mosaics may be

found in A. Venturi, Storia, I; Dalton, of.ctt., Wulff, op.cit., Diehl, Manuel, and ibid, Ravenne, Paris, 1927. The results of the latest researches and criticism are summarized in Toesca, Storia, I, p.181 et seq., and Van Berchem

and Clouzot, op.cit.

Works devoted entirely to the mosaics are J. P. Richter,

NOTES Die Mosaiken von Ravenna, Vienna,

273.

1878 inal

and the Fifth Centuries, Petrograd, 1895

Mosaics

of the Fourth

(Russian); Barbier de Montault,

Les mosaiques des églises de Ravenne, Paris, 1897 en The Mosaics of the Churches of Ravenna, Petrograd, 1896 (Russian), analyzed by Dobbert in Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, 1898, vol.X XI, p.98 ff; Corrado Ricci, Ravenna, Bergamo, 1902; H. Dütschke, Ravennatische Studien, Leipzig, 1909; J. Kurth, Die Wandmosaiken von Ravenna, Munich 1912; G. Galassi, La cosidetta decadenza nell'arte musiva ravennate, in Felix Ravenna, fasc.16, 1914, and ibid., Roma o Bisanzio, Rome, 1930 (profusely illustrated). For an account of the restorations see Ricci, Ravenna e i lavori fatti dalla

Sovrintendenza dei monumenti nel 1898, Bergamo, 1899 and ibid. in Arte italiana decorativa e industriale, XIII, 1904, pp.21-5. For early sources see Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis sive Vite Ravennatum (IX) century published in Muratori, Rerum italicarum scriptores, ΤΊ, Milan, 1723, and also in Monumenta Germanig Historica, Hanover, 1878 and re-edited by

A. Testi Rasponi in Raccolta degli Storici staliani, Milan, 1924 et seq; Rubeus, Historiarum Ravennatum libri decem., Venice, 1589; Ciampini, op.ctt. 58Sac. Sante Ghigi, 11 Mausoleo di Galla Placidia, Bergamo, 1910; C. Ricci, 11 sepolcro di Galla Placidia, in Bolletino d'Arte, 1913 and ibid., Il Mausoleo di

Galla Placidia in Ravenna, Rome, 1914; Muratoff, of.cit., p.63 seq. 54Sangiorgo, Il battistero della basilica Ursiana di Ravenna, Rome, 1900; C. Ricci, Il battistero della Cattedrale, Rome, 1932 ; Muratoff, op.cit., p.65. 54

Μμῆος in L’Arte, 1905, p.55 ff.; A. Baumstark, nuovo in Rassegna (Gregoriana, 1910, p.33 ff.

J mosaici

di S. Apollinare

The procession of female saints strangely recalls frescoes in certain of the cave-temples of Khotan, although in these the iconography Chinese. Cf. Sir Aurel Stein, Ancient Khotan, London, 1907.

86Quitt, Der Mosaikencyclus

von San

Vitale, in Byz.Denkmaler,

is

typically

III, Vienna,

1903; Toesca, op.cit., I, p.193 and notes 56-60, p.234. 57Santi Muratori in L'Arte, 1910, p.6o ff.; Toesca, of.cit., I, p.200 ff.; Van Berchem and Clouzot, op.cit., p.159 ff.; Muratoff, op.cit., p.78.

55Galassi (op.cit., p.198 ff.) comparing these mosaics with the ninth century Roman mosaics of Pascal I and Gregory IV, with which, in fact, they have many

points

in common,

thinks

that

they

are a restoration

of the

tenth

century.

5°For the extent of these and other restorations see the plates in Van Berchem and Clouzot,

op.cit.; Muratoff,

op.cit., p.74.

Galassi

(of.cit., p.

194

ff.)

con-

siders that the whole medallion of the Baptism is a restoration of the eighth century and that the Apostles Peter and Paul together with the young Apostle by the side of Paul were also done over at this time.

274

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

990. Wulff, Das Ravennatische Mosaik von S. Michele in Africisco im Kaiser Friedrich-Museum, in Jahrbuch der Königlich preuszischen Kunstsammlungen, vol.25, 1904, pp.374-401, with colored plate; C. Ricci, La chiesa di S. Michele “ad Frigiselo”, in Rassegna d'arte, 1905, pp.136-142. A watercolor copy of the mosaic in the Museum of Ravenna probably gives a better idea

of the style of the original than the work which now exists in Berlin. *!For the lost mosaics of Ravenna

see E. Müntz,

The Lost Mosaics

of Ravenna,

in American Journal of Archeology, 1885, pp.115-130.

9305.cit., I, Pl. XLVI. esStrzygowski, Antiochenische Kunst, in Oriens Christianus, 1902 and ibid, Ravenna als Vorort aramaischer Kunst, in Oriens Christianus, 1915. *4For the mosaics of Salonika see Dalton, op.cit., p.374 ff.; Diehl, Manuel, I, p.132 ff.; Van Berchem and Clouzot, of.cit., p.66 ff.; Diehl, Le Tourneau and

Saladin, Les Monuments chrétiens de Salonique, Paris, 1918; Ch. Diehl, La Peinture Byzantine, Paris, 1933. For historical sources see O. Tafrali, Thessalonique, des Origines au XIV Siecle, Paris, 1919. ‘The saints are: Romanus, Eucarpion, Ananias, Basiliscus, Priscus, Philippus, Therinus, Leo of Patara, Philemon of Comara, Onesiphorus, Porphyrius, Cosmas, and Damian. 68See A. M. Friend Jr., The Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin Manu-

scripts, Part II, in Art Studies, 1929. $7P. N. Papageorgiou in Byzantinische

Zeitschrift,

XVII,

1908;

Ouspenski,

Recently Discovered Mosaics at St. Demetrius, Salonika, in Izvjestija (Bulletin) of the Russian Archsological Institute of Constantinople, XIV, 1908;

O. Tafrali in Revue archéol., II, 1909 and I, 1910; Diehl and Le Tourneau, Les mosaiques de Saint-Demetrius de Salonique, in Monuments

1911; Dalton, stroyed by the The best resumés Dalton (op.cit.

Piot, XVIII,

op.cit., p.378, for additional bibliography and mosaics defire of 1917. of the little that is known about these mosaics are those of p.391 ff.) and Diehl (Manuel, Y, p.163 ff.) See, also, Fossati,

Aya Sofia, London,

1852;

stantinopel,

1854;

Berlin,

Salzenberg, Altchristliche Baudenmäler

Lethaby

and Swainson,

The

Church

von Kon-

of Sancta

Sophia, Constantinople, London and New York, 1894, pp.273-289; Ebersolt and Thiers, Les églises de Constantinople, Paris, 1913; Muratoff, op.cit., p.72 ; A.Heisenberg, Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche ; zwei Basiliken Konstantins, Leipzig, 1908, and ibid, Die alten Mosaiken der Apostelkirche und der Hagia

Sophia, in £éva of the National University of Greece, 1912; and especially, Thomas Whittemore, The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul, Paris, 1933; J. Pozzi, Les mosaiques

de Sainte Sophie, in Beaux

Arts,

1933;

ibid, La ré-

apparition des mosaiques de Sainte Sophie, in Rev. archéol, 1934; F. Rutter, Mosaics in the Dome of St. Sophia, Constantinople, in International Studio,

NOTES

275

1930; R. Byron, Hidden Splendour ; Mosaics in St. Sophia in Constantinople, in Art Digest, 1932. Mosaics which have been assigned to the time of Justinian include the Cherubim in the pendentives of the great dome, the angel with orb and sceptre on the south side of the apse, and a number of decorative mosaics in the soffits of the arches and other minor positions. Others known to us are: the Pantocrator of the dome, the enthroned Virgin and Child in the apse, the Pentecost in the western cupola of the gallery, the saints and Prophets along the north and south walls, the Etimasia in a medallion flanked

by the Virgin and St. John the Baptist on the eastern arch beneath the dome. Below this last is the portrait of John Palzologos. These mosaics may possibly date from the time of Romanos (eleventh century) with restorations of the fifteenth century. On the opposite western arch is a medallion of the Virgin and Child between St. Peter and St. Paul, perhaps of the time of Basil I. The side aisles and the galleries have geometric and floral designs in great variety which may well be from the time of Justinian. Until these mosaics are fully uncovered and studied it is mere speculation to give them a

correct dating. It is probable that comparatively little of the work actually dates from the sixth century and that eventually the bulk of it will be assigned to the time of the Macedonians and the Comnenes with restorations as late as the fifteenth century. For documentary references to these mosaics and other lost mosaics see: J. P.

Richter,

Quellen

der

byzantinischen

Kunstgeschichte,

Vienna,

1897,

Index s.v.Mosaiken. The description of the lost mosaics of the Church of the Apostles by Constantine the Rhodian was edited by E. Legrand (Revue des études grecques, YX,

1896, p.32

ff.)

For the description by Mesarites

(twelfth century) see: A. Heisenberg, op.cit., II, p.3 ff. 9?Beljajef, D., Saint Irene, in Vizantieski Vremenik (published by the Imperial Academy of Sciences), Leningrad,

1895; W. S. George, The Church of Saint

Eirene at Constantinople, London, 1912. Dalton, op.cit. p. 383; Van Berchem and Clouzot, op.cit., p.183 ff.; Benesevic, Sur la date de la mosaique de la Transfiguration au Mont Sinai, in Byzantion, I, 1924; Pl. 2-7.

ibid in Monumenta

Sinaitica,

fasc.I, Leningrad,

1925

(Russian),

See, also, F. M. Abel, Notes d'archéologie chrétienne sur le Sinai, in Revue biblique, 1907, pp.ıo5-ı2 and S. Vailhé, La mosaique de la Transfiguration au Sinai est-elle de Justinien?, in Revue de l’Orient chrétien, 2d series, II, pp.96-98.

There has always been some question as to the actual date of this mosaic. Two inscriptions on the beams: “For the salvation of our late monarch Justinian” and “To the memory of our late queen Theodora" (Vailhé, 02.cit.)

276

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

prove that the church was at least roofed over after the death of Theodora (548) and before the death of Justinian (565). A Greek inscription on the

mosaic

itself below

the Transfiguration

and

above

the medallions

of the

Prophets, tells that the work was done by the abbot, Longinus, who together

with his deacon, John, is represented in the row of Apostles at the top of the apse. A second inscription in the right-hand corner of the mosaic reads: “By the care of Theodore priest and prior, indiction XIV." Abel, (op.cit.) has shown that this indiction would fall either in 550-51 or in 565-66, just

at the death of Justinian and some do not consider either of these dates as plausible for the execution of the mosaic. If the two portrait medallions in the spandrels represent Justinian and Theodora they are shown fashion which is not consistent with the pomp of the mosaics at It has been suggested that these medallions represent Christ and Moses and St. Catherine, St. John and the Virgin, or what

probable, two unknown donors.

Miss Van Berchem

in a simple San Vitale. the Virgin, seems more

(of.cit.p.188) takes this

last point of view and on stylistic grounds dates the mosaic in the seventh or the eighth century, although it is more generally considered to be contemporary with Justinian. In the sixteenth century other mosaics still existed

here showing the Virgin and Child between Moses and St. Catherine. Dalton, of.cit., p.372; Diehl, op.cit. I, p.223 ff.; Toesca, op.cit., I, p.202 ἢ; Van Berchem and Clouzot, of.cit., p.175 ff.; G. Boni, 11 Duomo di Parenzo, in Archivio storico dell'arte, 1894; P. Deperis, [1 Duomo di Parenzo e i suoi mosaic ; in Atti e memorie della Soc. istriana di arch. e stor. patr., X, 1894; A. Amorosa, Le basiliche cristiane di Parenzo, Parenzo, 1895; O. Marucchi,

Le recente scoperte nel Duomo

di Parenzo, in Nuovo

Bull. di arch. crist.,

1896; Wlha and Niemann, Der Dom von Parenzo, Vienna, 1899; F. H. Jackson, The Shores of the Adriatic, the Austrian Side, London, 1908, pp.107 seq. ; A. Pogatschnig, Parenzo, in Atti e memorie della Soc. istriana di arch. e stor. patr. XXVI, 1911; Muratoff, op.cit., p.76. 72A. Morassi, La chiesetta di Santa Maria Formosa Bolletino d'Arte, 1924; Galassi, op.cit., p.11o ff.

o del Canneto

a Pola,

in

7$ For this and the following Italian mosaics in this chapter use the general references under note 22.

The Christ and the Apostles follow century fresco in the Cemetery of Muratoff (op.cit., p.58) would place "Storia dell'arte cristiana nei primi otto I, p. 224.

750 .cit., TI, p.1192 and IIT, Pl.4o. 7605.cit., I, p.208 and note 76, p.235.

the same general scheme as the fourth Domitilla (Wilpert, op.cit., Pl.193) ; this in the fourth century. secoli della Chiesa, Prato, 1872-1880,

NOTES

"Dalton,

of.cit., p.372;

Van

Berchem

and

277

Clouzot,

of.cit., p.III;

Toesca,

La

Pittura etc., p.14 ff., and Storia, p.209 and note 77, p.235; Wilpert, op.cit.,

"E,

III, Pls.83 and 84.

Mella, Il Battistero di Agrate conturbia e di Albenga, in Atti della Soc. di Arch. e Bell Arte di Torino, 1883, p.57; P. Toesca, La pittura e la miniature nella Lombardia, Milan, 1912, p.21 ff.; ibid, Storia, I, p.208 and note 75, p.235; Ainaloff, The Mosaics of the Baptistery of Albenga, in Vizantieski Vremenik, VIII, 1901, p.520 ff.

The monogram of Christ enclosed in a halo within two larger concentric halos represents the Trinity and it seems to be similar in iconography to a lost mosaic from Gaza in Palestine. The twelve doves as symbols of the Apostles were, also, probably represented in the fifth century mosaics at Nola (see note 81) and Capua. The style seems to show a direct contact

with those Syro-Palestinian influences which were also active in Southern Italy. Haseloff, / musaici di Casaranello, in Bollettino d'Arte, 1907; W. de Gruneisen in Archivio della R. Soc. Romana di storia patria, XXIX, p.518. SE. Bertaux, L'Art dans l'Italie Méridionale, Paris, 1901, I, p.43 ff. ; A. Filangieri di Candida, J restauri dei musaici del Battistero di S. Giovanni in Fonte, in L’Arte, 1898; A. Mufioz, S. Giovanni in Fonte, in L'Arte, 1908; A. Sorrentino, T9A.

La basilica di Santa Restituta in Napoli, in Bollettino d'Arte, 1909; A. W. Bijvanck, Het mozaiek in de doopkerk bij de Kathedral te Napels (with French summary), in Nederlandsch Hist. Inst. Rome Med. vol.ıo, 1931.

The iconography of these mosaics is directly related to the ritual of baptism. Those

worthy

(Traditio

to be baptized

Legis)

and

in the

were

instructed

Gospels

(symbols

regenerating effect of the water of baptism

in the laws

of Christianity

of the Evangelists)

and

the

is recalled in the miracles of

Christ here represented. *Wickhoff, Der Apsismosaik in der Basilica des H. Felix zu Nola, in Römische Quartalschrift, III, 1889, p.158. Lost mosaics in the early Christian basilica of St. Severus are superficially described by Muratori in his Rerum Italicarum

Scriptores

(1, part

II, pp.293-4).

They

represented

Our

Lord

with

the

Apostles and four Prophets below.

The basilica of St. Felix contained scenes from the Old and the New Testaments, but it is uncertain whether these were frescoes or mosaics.

The mosaic

of the apse showed a representation of the Trinity in which a hand symbolized God,

a dove,

the Holy

Ghost,

and

a cross or a lamb,

Apostles were also represented as lambs or doves.

Our

and we have already found it at Albenga. (see note

150), probably

copying

The

One of the lost mosaics

at Santo Prisco at Capua had this same symbolical treatment Rome

Saviour.

(see note 82),

The apse of San Clemente

an earlier composition,

in

is derived

278

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

from an analogous scheme. The most characteristic elements of this style are not found in any of the existing mosaics of Ravenna, and it seems more probable to suppose a common place of origin in Syria or Palestine, which, during this period were in close contact with Campania and Liguria by way of the sea. 92Wilpert, of.cit., III, Pls.74 ff.; Bertaux, of.cit., I, p.so ff.

The apse had mosaics which were destroyed in 1759. They were described and engraved by Michele Monaco in his Sanctuarium Capuanum, Naples, 1630.

335Gauckler, Mosaiques tombales d'une chapelle de martyrs

à Thabraca, in Mon.

Piot, III, 1897. Also in southern Italy, a tombal mosaic found at Teano, has a crude repre-

sentation of the Adoration of the Magi with St. Peter and St. Paul, showing that the custom of thus adorning sarcophagi, common in northern Africa and

Spain, was

not unknown

note 73). *^Mary

Berenson,

in Italy itself

(Toesca,

op.cit., I, p.207 and

᾿ A Modern

86Marg. Van Berchem,

Pilgrimage, London

The Mosaics of the Dome

and New

York,

1933.

of the Rock and of the Great

Mosque at Damascus (transl. by K. A. Creswell, reprint from ibid., Early Muslim Architecture, Oxford, 1932). Miss Van Berchem is the first to carefully study these mosaics and publish

them with comprehensive and admirable illustrations. The scanty early bibliography is not of much value. The Marquis de Vogüé in his Temple de

Jérusalem

(Paris,

1864)

pointed

out

the

great

interest

of

the

work.

Mention should be made of the discussion which arose between Herzfeld (Genesis der islamischen Kunst, in Der Islam, I, 1910, pp.27 ff. p.105 ff., and II, p.235 ff.) and Strzygowski (Felsendom und Aksamochee, in Der Islam, II, p.79 ff). Herzfeld correctly affirmed that these mosaics were based on Hellenistic traditions while Strzygowski considered them "purely Persian". For a complete analysis of the Arabic texts which mention these mosaics as well as those of Damascus and others which have disappeared see Marg. Van Berchem, of.cit., pp.156-167. We seem justified in accepting the existence of a Syro-Palestinian school of mosaicists in spite of the scanty remains—pavements excepted— which have come down to us. Mention has already been made in an early chapter

of the lost mosaics of Palestine.

Arab texts mention mosaics in the churches

of Edessa and Lydd (Van Berchem, of.cit., p.558). The Church of Már Gabriel in the Tür Abdín (Northern Mesopotamia) has a fragment of

mural mosaic: vine scrolls on a gold background, springing from a vase and framed in a border of rosettes, similar to motifs in the Dome

of the Rock

NOTES

279

(Gertrude L. Bell, Churches and Monasteries of the Tür Abdin, in Zeitschrift für Geschichte

der Architektur,

IX, p.67).

Miss Van Berchem's careful analysis of individual motifs show a predominating influence of Hellenistic and Greeco-Roman traditions combined with others

which

winged motif. those

of

the

are purely

Eastern,

such

as the Sassanian

crescent

and

the

The acanthus scrolls, for instance, are of the same type as Ara

Pacis

from

Rome,

and

other

unlike those in the early mosaics of Rome fact that the thirteenth

century

apse

classical

and Ravenna.

of Santa

Maria

examples,

and

It is a curious

Maggiore

at Rome

shows acanthus scrolls more in the tradition of those of the Dome of the Rock. Until the sixteenth century the outer walls of the Dome of the Rock were also covered with mosaics. These have entirely disappeared and we have only vague indications regarding them (Van Berchem, oj.cit., p.153). Miss Van Berchem considers that the three series of mosaics are of one

period and that the drum is not of 1027 but that this group was “more or less remade at the date of the inscription, though preserving at the same time its original composition and certain parts almost intact." **Eustache de Lorey, Les mosaiques du VIIle siécle de la mosquée des Omeiyades à Damas, in Cahiers d'art, 1V, 1929; ibid, A Novel Aspect of Byzantine Art of the Eighth Century; ibid, Mosaics in the Mosque of the Omayyads at Damascus, in Parnassus, May, 1930; ibid, The Mosaics of the Mosque 0f the Omayyads

at Damascus,

in Syria,

1931;

E. Kühnel, Die Mosaiken

der Omayadenmoschee in Damaskus, in Il Cicerone, November,

1929; Les

ceramiques de la mosquée des Omeiyades, in Art et décoration, Paris, 1929; Marg. van Berchem, art., Damascus, in Mon. Piot, 1930, and of.cit., p.230; G. Migeon, Les mosaiques de la grande mosquée de Damas, in Rev. archéol., 1929; M. Chamot, Damascus Mosaics, in Apollo, 1931.

Other

fragments

of mosaics

had

already

been

known

before

recent discoveries, both in the arcades of the court and

de Lorey's

in the interior of

the mosque. These are enumerated by Miss Van Berchem who studied them in 1927 (op.cit., p.231). In 1893 a disastrous fire severely damaged those which still existed in the interior. One of the most important is the fragment enframing the windows of the north transept which shows trees and buildings in the style of the Barada panel already described. *'Marg. van Berchem, of.cit., p.230. *858Mary Berenson, of.cit., p.162. ®?The bibliographical references under note 22 also apply to the following Roman mosaics.

%The

Latin reads: AVREA CONCISIS

SVRGIT

PICTVRA

METALLIS

280

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

ET COMPLEXA SIMVL CLAVDITVR IPSA DIES FONTIBVS E NIVEIS CREDAS AVRORA SVBIRE CORREPTAS NVBES RORIBVS ARVA RIGANS VEL QVALEM INTER SIDERA LVCEM PROFERET IRIM PVRPVREVSQVE PAVO IPSE COLORE NITENS QVI POTVIT NOCTIS VEL LVCIS REDDERE FINEM MARTYRVM E BVSTIS HINC REPPVLIT ILLE CHAOS SVRSVM VERSA QUOD CVNCTIS CERNITVR VNO PR SVL HONORIVS HAC VOTA DICATA DEDIT VESTIBVS ET FACTIS SIGNANTVR ILLIVS ORA LVCET ET ASPECTV LVCIDA CORDA GERENS 91The figures of saints on the walls resemble the figures in the panel of St. Demetrius and the Founders at Salonika which The Latin inscription is as follows:

may

be a century

earlier.

MARTVRIBVS XPI DNI PIA VOTA IOHANNES REDDIDIT ANTISTES SANCTIFICANTE DO AC SACRI FONTIS SIMILI FVLGENTE METALLO PROVIDVS INSTANTER HOC COPVLAVIT OPVS QVO QVISQVIS GRADIENS ET XPM PRONVS ADORANS EFFVSASQVE PRECES MITTIT AD AETHRA SVAS 92E. Müntz, L'oratoire du pape Jean VII, in Revue archéologique, 1877; Bartolo, Un frammento Bollettino d'arte, 1907.

inedito

dei

musaici

vaticani

95Bibl. vaticane, ms. Barberini, so, p.89 and pp.go-91. 9Op.cit., III, PL.XXITI. %For the general bibliography of St. Sophia see note 1909, p.39 ff.) dates the cross as and the Virgin at the close of the cussed by Dalton (op.cit., p.376) Among the names contained in six Irene.

112.

Diehl

VII,

(Mon.

A. in

Piot,

early as the fifth or the sixth century eighth. The Greek inscriptions are diswho also gives additional bibliography. cruciform monograms inscribed in circles

on the north and south walls of the bema and his mother

di Giovanni

The date would

are those of Constantine

thus be not far from

785, and

VI the

Virgin in the apse would have replaced the cross upon the downíall of the iconoclasts. 86See general references under note 22. The most recent and authoritative criticism is that of Toesca, of.cit., I, p.394 ff. *TAlemanni, De Lateranensibus Parientinis restitutis, pendix, Rome, 1756. Below the scene on the right is the inscription:

BEATE

PETRE DONAS

Rome,

1625, with

VITA LEON. PP. ET BICTO

RIA CAROLO REGI DONAS.

m

an ap-

NOTES

281

At the base of the apse is: DOCETE OMNES GENTSE VAPIZANTES EOS IN NOMINE PATRIS ET FILII ET SPIRITVS SCS ET ECCE EGO VOBISCVM SVM OMNIBVS DIEBVS VSQVE AD CONSVMATIONEM SECVLI On the arch is another inscription: GLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEO ET IN TERRA BONE BOLNVTATIS

PAX. OMNIBVS

#Op.cit., II, PLXL. This is also reproduced in Alemani, op.cit., p.ıo. On the left of Our Lord were the Virgin, St. Peter, St. Susannah and the Pope,

on the right, SS. Paul, Caius, Gubinus and Charlemagne. See, also, article Charlemagne, in Cabrol, Dictionnaire d'archéologie, chrétienne et de liturgie, Paris, 1909. For the lost mosaics of San Martino ai Monti see Van Marle, op.cit., I, p.ro2 for additional references. These were ordered by Pope Sergius II, 844-847, and included a Virgin surrounded by saints and other holy per-

sonages carrying their emblems. 39 M wsaici cristiani, p.28. IE,

Müntz

in Revue archéol., XXVIII,

1874, p. 172 ff.; Baldoria, La cappella

del Zenone a Santa Prassede in Roma, in Archivio storico dell'arte, IV, 1891. At the base of the apse is the inscription: EMICAT AVLA PIAE VARIS DECORATA METALLIS PRAXEDIS DNO SVPER AETHRA PLACENTIS HON ORE PONTIFICIS SVMMI STVDIO PASCHALIS ALVMNI SEDIS APOSTOLICAE PASSIM QUI CORPORA CONDENS PLVRIMA SCORVM SVBTER HAEC MOENIA PONIT FRETVS VT HIS LIMEN MEREATVR ADIRE POLORVM ' The general references for this and the three following Roman mosaics in Santa Maria in Domnica, Santa Cecilia and San Marco will be found under note 22. At Santa Maria in Domnica the inscription at the base of the apse reads: ISTA DOMVS PRIDEM FVERAT CONFRACTA RVINIS NVNC RUTILAT IVGITER VARIIS DECORATA METALLIS ETDECVS ECCE SVVS SPLENDET CEN PHOEBVS IN ORBE QVI POST FVRVA FVGANS TETRAE VELAMINA NOCTIS VIRGO MARIA TIBI PASCHALIS PRAESVL HONESTVS CONDIDIT HANC AVLAM LAETVS PER SAECLA MANENDAM At Santa Cecilia the inscription extolling the work of Paschal is as follows:

HAEC DOMVS AMPLA MICAT VARIIS FABRICATA METALLIS OLIM QVAE FVERAT CONFRACTA SVB TEMPORE PRISCO CONDIDIT IN MELIVS PASCHALIS PRAESVL OPIMVS

282

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

HANC AVLAM DNI FORMANS FVNDAMINE CLARO AVREA GEMMATIS RESONANT HAEC DINDIMA TEMPLI LAETVS AMORE DEI HIC CONIVNXIT CORPORA SANCTA CAECILAE ET SOCIIS RVTILAT HIC FLORE IVVENTVS QUAE PRIDEM IN CRYPTIS PAVSABANT MEMBRA BEATA ROMA RESVLTAT OVANS SEMPER ORNATA PER AEVVM. 1091005. cit. II, Pls. 51 and 52. 102Prévost, La basilique de Théodulfe

et

la paroisse

de

Germigny-des-Prés,

Orleans, 1889; Van Berchem and Clouzot, op.cit., p.223 ff. For an account of the church before the unfortunate modern restorations see G. Bouet,

L'église de Germigny-des-Prés, in Bulletin Monumentale, 1868. 3*For bibliography for medieval French pavements in mosaic see C. Enlart, Manuel d'archéologie francaise, Paris, 1919, vol. I, p. CIV. See, also, H. Woodruff, Iconography and Date of the Mosaics of La Daurade, in Art Bulletin, March, 1931. !^Didron, Manuel d'iconographie chrétienne, Paris, 1845. For a brilliant resumé of this new iconography see Diehl, Manuel, II, p.484 ff. There is a mine

of information in Millet's Recherches sur l'iconographie de l'Évangile, Paris, 1916. For the importance of Byzantium in the formation of the new style see Bertaux, La part de Byzance dans l'art byzantin, in Journal des Savants,

I91I, pp.164 and 304. I The texts of Mesarites and Constantine the Rhodian may be found in Heisenberg, Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche; zwei Basiliken Konstantins, Leipzig, 1908; see, also, Salzenberg, Altarchristliche Baudenkmaler von Konstanti-

nopel, Berlin, 1854, and Ebersolt, Constantinople byzantin et les voyageurs du Levant, Paris, 1919, and Heisenberg, Die alten Mosaiken der Apostelkirche

und der Hagia Sophia, in Ξένια of the National University of Greece, 1912. 106Dalton, op. cit., p. 384; Smirnof, Mosaics of Cyprus, in Vizantieski Vremenik, IV, 1897, pp. 1-93; T. I. Schmidt, Panagia Angelokistos, in Izvestia, XV, I91I, D. 217. The mosaics are reproduced from Smirnof's photographs in Diehl, Justinien, Paris, 1901, Figs. 125, 126, 127. It is possible that these

mosaics existed as early as the sixth century and that as venerated images they withstood

the vicissitudes

of the centuries

and

were

incorporated

in

buildings of a later date. In this case analogies with later mosaics would be explained by restoration. loTDalton,

of.cit.

mosáiques III, 1897; and S. H. 1901; Th.

p.393;

Diehl,

Manuel,

YI,

p.509

ff.;

ibid,

L'église

et

les

de Saint-Luc en Phocide, Paris, 1889; ibid, in Monuments Piot, ibid, in Études byzantines, Paris, 1905, p.382 ff.; R. W. Schultz Barnsley, The Monastery of St. Luke in Stiris in Phocis, London, Schmidt, The Mosaics of the Monastery of Saint Luke (in Rus-

sian), Kharkof,

1914.

Muratoff,

of.cit., p.100.

NOTES The

most

Demus,

recent

work

Byzantine

on

Mosaics

the

283

Grecian

in Greece,

mosaics

Hosios

is:

Ernst

Lucas

and

Diez

and

Daphni,

Otto

Cam-

bridge, Mass., 1931, which contains colored illustrations of the more important subjects. 108See B, Lieb, Rome, Kiev et Byzance a la fin du Xle siecle, Paris, 1924. 19Dalton, op.cit., p.394 ff.; Diehl, Manuel, II, p.513; D. Ainaloff and E. Rieden, Ancient Monuments of Art in Kiev; the Cathedral of Santa Sophia

(in Russian), Kharkoff, 1899 (illustrated) ; the same author's earlier work, The Cathedral of Santa Sophia at Kiev, tions serves as text to the fine plates Imperial Russian Archsological Society and 1887 under the title of Antiquities of The Basilica of Santa Sophia at Kiev

Leningrad, 1899, without illustraof Th. Solntseff published by the of St. Petersburg between 1871 the Russian Empire ; Th. Schmidt, (in Russian), Moscow, 1914; D.

Ainaloff, Die Mosaiken des Michaelsklosters in Kiew, in Belvedere, P. I ff.; Diez and Demus, of.cit., p.III.

1926,

110Dalton, op.cit., p.388; Diehl, Manuel, II, p.520; ibid, Études byzantines, p.353 ff.; O. Wulff, Die Komesiskirche in Nicda und ihre Mosaiken, Strasbourg, 1903; Th. Schmidt, Die Koimesis-Kirche von Nikaia, Berlin and Leipzig, 1927 (thirty-five plates).

These mosaics disappeared either during or after the Greek occupation of a few years ago. MAn

article by Th. Schmidt in /zvestia has not yet appeared but his conclusions are in a note in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXV, p.260. He gives

to the seventh, or possibly the sixth century the two beautiful angels on the curve of the arch preceding the apse, dates the Madonna of the apse after 787, and the narthex in the eleventh century. Schmidt's explorations included the uncovering of two fine mosaic icons of Christ and the Virgin. All of this work was already much damaged in 1921 by the Turks and now practically nothing remains. U?Da]ton, Piot,

op.cit., p.374 ff.; Diehl, Manuel, II, XVI, 1909; Diehl, Le Tourneau and

p.521, and in Monuments Saladin, of.cit, p.ıı7 ff.;

J. I. Smirnof, Mosaics of St. Sophia, Salonika, in Viz Vrem., V, 1898 (Russian); Muratoff, of.cit., p.96. H*Dalton, op.cit., p.396; Diehl, Manuel, II, p.518; Strzygowski, Nea Moni auf Chios, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, V, 1896, p.145; O. Wulff, Die Mosaiken der Nea Moni von Chios, in ibid, XXV, 1925, pp. 115-143; Diez and Demus, Athens, 1931.

op.cit.; A. C. Orlandos,

14palton, op.cit., p.398;

Diehl, Manuel,

Monuments

II, 524;

Perdrizet

byzantins

de Chios,

and Chesnay,

La

metropole de Serres, in Monuments Piot, X, 1904; Diez and Demus, op.cit., p.116, would date this mosaic in the thirteenth century.

284

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

118See Dalton, of.cit., p.398, for other earlier references.

99A. Venturi, Storia, II, p.416 ff.; A. L. Frothingham, Les mosaiques de Grottaferrata, in Gazette archéologique, 1883, p.335 ff.; Baumstark, 11 museico degli apostoli nella chiesa di Grottaferrata, in Oriens Christianus, IV, 1904. Toesca (op.cit., III, p.927) attributes the mosaic of the Pentecost to the

end of the twelfth century. "Dalton, op.cit., p.396; Diehl, Manuel, II, p.524 ff., G. Millet, Les mosaiques de

Daphni, in Monuments Piot, ITI, 1897 and ibid, Le monastere de Daphni, Paris,

1899;

E. Bertaux, Les mosaiques

de Daphni,

in Gazette des Beaux-

Arts, 1901; Diez and Demus, of.cit.; Muratoff. op.cit., p.ror seq. 118 According to the description of Quaresimus (Elucidatio Terrae sanctae, Rome, 1639, II, p.645 ff.) the Tree of Jesse would seem to have been quite Western

in character, showing the inspiration of the Crusaders. It resembled those French conceptions of the middle of the twelfth century, perhaps inspired by the abbot Suger, such as the windows of St. Denis and Chartres (see E. Male, L’Art religieux du XIIe siécle en France). Ciampini in his De Sacris Aedeficiis a Constantino mago constructis, Rome, 1693, Pl. XXXIII,

shows an engraving of the north side of the nave with its arrangement. De Vogüé was the pioneer of modern research and gives a detailed description of the mosaics in his Les Églises de la Terre Sainte, Paris, 1860.

Monographs on the church which also deal with the mosaics are:,Weir Schultz, The Church oj the Nativity at Bethlehem, London, 1910; Wiegand, Die Gebürtskirche in Bethlehem, Leipzig, 1911; Vincent and Abel, Bethlehem, Paris, 1914; A. Baumstark, Palestinensia, in Römische Quartalschrift, 1906, pp. 143-149, 157-188. De Vogüé, Le temple de Jérusalem, p.101 ff.; Dalton, op.cit., p.415. 120Dalton, op.cit., p.430, gives a nearly complete list of existing portative mosaics. See, also, E. Müntz, Les mosaiques byzantines portatives, in Bulletin monumental, Caen, 1886, vol.52; D. Talbot Rice, New Light on Byzantine Portative Mosaics, in Apollo, 1933. 121There are good general accounts of the Sicilian mosaics in the works of Diehl, Dalton, Venturi and Van Marle already cited. The most recent

and authoritative account is that of Toesca, op.cit., II, p.940 ff.

See, also,

Diehl, L'art byzantin

Salazaro,

dans

l'Italie méridionale,

Paris,

1894, and

Monumenti dell'arte meridionale d'Italia, Naples, 1882; Muratoff, of.cit., p.11 seq. 122Tchukareff in Proceedings of the Russian Imperial Archzological Society, New Series, IV, pp.50-67 (Russian). 128 Terzi, Amari, and Cavallari, La Cappella di S. Pietro nella reggia di Palermo, Palermo, 1889. A. A. Pavlovsky, Iconographie de la chapelle palatine, Paris,

1895 and ibid, in Revue archéologique, XXV,

1894.

NOTES

285

Gravina, 77 Duomo di Monreale, Palermo, 1859 et seq. ; Serradifalco, I7 Duomo di Monreale, Palermo, 1838. 136See Venturi, of.cit., II, p.408. A fragment of mosaic now in the Museum of Syracuse, representing a lion under a tree, may possibly have belonged to a similar kind of decoration. This is composed of oblong tesserz.

126T)alton, of.cit., p.406; Toesca, op.cit., III, note 32, p.1031. Venturi, of.cit., II, p. 414-16 and pp. 429-31; Van Marle, op.cit., I. p. 137; Bertaux, op.cit., p.19o. Fragments of mosaics, now under the roof, show symbols of the Evangelists. Toesca (of.cit., III, note 32, p.1032) dates the mosaic on the facade as of the thirteenth century on account of the rather

Gothic character of the inscription, but it would seem to be at least as early as the twelfth century. 133 Venturi, op.cit., II, p.416. The apse of the Cathedral had a mosaic which was engraved by Ciampini (op.cit.) and represented the Madonna with SS. Peter, Stephen, Paul and Agatha,

with

two

Prophets

on

the

spandrels

and

a medallion

containing

Our Lord above. _A small ruined mosaic above the portal of Santa Maria Libera at Aquino seems to be of the middle of the twelfth century and in the usual Byzantine

Style. The church of Santa Lucia at Gaeta had a mosaic of the Virgin and Child long since lost. 12? Van Marle, of.cit., V, p.316; W. Rolffs, Geschichte der Malerei Leipzig, τοῖο, p.41; A. Sorrentino, ar£.cit.; E. Müntz, in Revue

I, 1883, p.20; F. Hermanin, Gli affreschi di Pietro Cavallini

Neapels, archéol.,

a Santa Cecilia

in Trastevere, in Gallerie naz.ital., V, Rome, 1902; Venturi, Storia, V, p.634.

Although the decoration of the throne shows that Lello was familiar with Roman work, his style, especially the treatment of the drapery in thin, clinging folds, is typically Florentine of the early fourteenth century. 180Much of the extensive early bibliography on St. Mark's has been superseded or incorporated in later criticism. The best general accounts are in O. Wulff, op.cit.; Venturi, o2.cit., II, p.418 ff.; Dalton, of.cit., p.399; Van Marle, of.cit., I, p.231 ff. The most recent authoritative accounts are in Diehl, Manuel, ΤΊ, p.536 ff. and Toesca, op.cit., II, p.950 ff. P. Saccardo's

Les Mosaiques

de Saint-Marc,

be found on the mosaics

which

Venice, was

1897, contains all the material

incorporated

work, La basilica di San Marco, Venice, complete monograph on the subject.

in Ongania's

to

voluminous

1878-1893, and is still the most

G. and L. Kreutz, La basilica di San Marco, Venice, 1843, is an early standard work now largely out of date. See, also, S. Biessel in Zeitschrift für christlichen Kunst, 1893, p.231 ff.; C. Neumann, Die Markuskirche in

Venedig, in Preussische Jahrbuch, 1892; L. Testi, Storia della pittura ven-

A HISTORY

286

eziana, Bergamo,

1909

OF MOSAICS

(for references

arelli in Civiltá cattolica,

to documentary

evidence);

C. Bric-

1915, p.147 ff. (for the numerous restorations).

A. Robertson's The Bible of St. Mark's, London, 1898, is a handbook containing a complete list of all the subjects and their arrangement but with

no critical analysis. There is a forthcoming monograph on these mosaics by Otto Demus (Die Mosaiken von San Marco in Venedig, Vienna-Leipzig). See, also, G. Gombosi, 11 pin antico ciclo di mosaici di San Marco, in Dedalo, 1933; O. Demus, Über einige venezianische Mosaiken in Belvedere, 1931; Muratoff, op.cit., p.108 seq. 1910)5.cif II, p.951.

Constant

restorations,

even

earlier

make it doubly hardto date these mosaics with scenes from the life of Christ are so similar in narthex that they should be included with the these craftsmen, and with them, others, such as St. Mark in the right arm of the church.

des 13 jahrhunderts,

than

the

Renaissance,

precision. The Gethsemane style to the Genesis of the thirteenth-century work of the Finding of the Body of

122Gombosi (ari.cit.), contrary to general opinion, considers that the mosaics in the tribune to the right of the organ, representing the legend of St. Mark, are the oldest in the church and that they are far removed from Byzantine canons. He compares them with certain contemporary pavements in Piedmont and with certain miniatures. He thinks that the Byzantine style of the cupolas which culminates in the Passion scenes on the triumphal 1387,

arch,

is later.

J. Tikkanen, Die Genesismosaiken von San Marco in Venedig, Helsingfors, 1889; ibid in Acta Societatis scientiarum Fennics, Helsingfors, 1889, XVII, p.207 ff. and in Archivo storico dell'arte, 1888, fasc. VI, p.212, VII, p.257 and IX, p.348.

ον

The mosaic decoration of the ciborium in the cathedral of Parenzo is so similar in style to these narthex mosaics that it would seem to have been derived from them. Although it is beyond our scope to describe the purely decorative mosaics of St. Mark's, carried out during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries when the exterior received its revetment of precious marbles and sculptures,

we may take as an example of this very characteristic and exquisite Venetian style, the arch above the portal of Sant’ Alipio. Here, there is a combination of sculpture in relief with panels of mosaic. Delicate borders of spiny acanthus leaves are silhouetted against a background of gold tessere; typical Byzantine emphasis upon contrasts of light and shade is here developed into an original style. Outside of St. Mark's the only other early mosaic in Venice is a small

NOTES

287

Madonna and Child in the Byzantine manner of the twelfth century, now in a tabernacle in the sacristy of Santa Maria della Salute. In the Czartoryski Museum at Krakow there is a head of an Apostle which is very Venetian in character. It appears to be of the thirteenth or the fourteenth century and may have originally come from St. Mark's. 1*4 Dalton, op.cit., p.401; Diehl, Manuel, II, p.544 ff.; Venturi, of.cit., II, p.428 ff.; Saccardo, op.cit., p.19; Toesca, op.cit., II, p.953 ff.; Galassi, op.cit., p.190

ff.;

L.

Conton,

Torcello,

Venice,

1927;

A.

Renan

in Gazette

des

Beaux-Arts, X X XVII, 1888, p.407 ff.; B. Schultz, Die Kirchenbauten auf der Insel Torcello, Berlin, 1927. Saccardo (of.cit., p.21) dated these in the eighth century.

All of the mosaics

of Torcello

have

been

frequently

badly restored; the whole upper zone of the Last Judgment was reset and certain fragments scattered, including a head which is the Castello at Milan. An inscripttion found under the altar proves that the Duomo of was erected by order of Isaac, the Exarch of Ravenna, in 639. Lazzarini, Una inscrizione Torcellana del secolo VII, in Atti del R.

and

entirely now in Torcello (See V. Istituto

Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 1914.) Galassi (op.cit., p.19o ff.) thinks that the vault dates from this period, although it was almost entirely

made over in the twelfth century, and that like the work of Parenzo and Pola, it is a direct off-shoot of Ravenna. He also considers that the four Church Fathers in the lateral apse date from the ninth century, showing the influence of Ravenna, but that these, also, were almost entirely restored in the twelfth century. 185See P, Jessen, Die Darstellung des Weltgerichts bis auf Michelangelo, Berlin, 1883 and G. Voss, Das fiingste Gericht in der bildenden Kunst des fruhen Mittelalters, in Beitrage zur Kunstgeschichte, VIII, Leipzig, 1884, pp. 48-52. MeK. v. Haas, Die Mosaiken im Dom von Triest, Vienna, 1859; G. Clausse, Basiliques et mosaiques chrétiennes, Paris, 1893.

187G, Gerola in Felix Ravenna, 1912, V. p.177 ff.; Galassi, of.cit., p.250 ff. The engraving of 1741 is from a now lost drawing by the architect Buonamici and is contained in G. L. Amadesi, Metropolitana di Ravenna, Bologna, 1748, and reproduced

by Gerola

In the apse itself was the the Madonna, three saints, in the lowest zone a row was Christ in a mandorla Virgin, and the Apostles. the life of Sant’Apollinare, Galassi

(of.cit., p.251

continuation

(ari.cit.), and

Galassi

(of.cit., Fig.

144).

Resurrection in three scenes; in the zone below, and two scenes from the life of Sant'Apollinare; of the early bishops of Ravenna. On the arch bearing the cross, flanked by two angels, the In the spandrels below were two scenes from two figures offering lambs, and two palm trees.

and note 9, p.3o1)

of the school of Ravenna,

thinks that this work

but Toesca

is a direct

(of.cit. p.953)

con-

A HISTORY

288

OF MOSAICS

siders that it was probably executed by Venetian artists. Another proof of the spread of Venetian influence at this time is the head of a Madonna (about

1135),

fragment

now

in the sala

remaining

op.cit., note

from

work

capitolare

carried

of the Cathedral

out

of Ferrara,

in the church.

a

(Cf.Toesca,

21, p.1028.)

188Venturi, of.cit., II, p.431; p.950; ibid, La pittura

Van Marle, op.cit., I, p.239; Toesca, op.cit., II, e la miniatura nella Lombardia, p.128 ff. The

throne of Our Lord is very similar in style to the thrones of the Virgin and

St. John

the Baptist

in the “scarsella” of the Florentine

Baptistery ;

both developed from the same Venetian source. Fragments of this apse which were removed during restorations have been preserved.

One,

the head of St. Proteus,

is now

in the Castello Sforzesco

at Milan, and the other, a head of St. Martin, is in the Museo Cristiana at Brescia. These heads seem to be earlier than the actual mosaic, perhaps as early as the ninth or tenth century, but the apse as we now have it,

allowing for restorations, was probably twelfth century Venetian school.

the

work

of

the

eleventh

and

133 Venturi, of.cit., V, p.217 ff.; Dalton, of.cit., p.412; Van Marle, of.cit., I, p.262; C. Soulier, Les influences orientales dans la peinture toscane, Paris, 1924, pp. 118-147; Toesca, op.cit., II, p.ıooı ff.; Pératé in Les Arts, Feb.,

1908, p.8 ff.; R. Davidsohn, Forschungen zu Geschichte von Florenz, Berlin, 1896;

A.

Cocchi,

Le

chiese

Vasari, Le Vite, Munich, evidence

and

successive

di Firenze,

Florence,

1903;

K.

Frey

in

G.

1911, I, p.328 ff. (the last three for documentary restorations).

Toesca, who has had an opportunity

to observe

the mosaics carefully at

close range, classifies them as follows: the decoration at the top of the dome is by Fra Jacopo or a similar master; a part of the angelic hierarchy

below is by a master working in the more "violent" style of St. Mark's with strong

contrasts

of light

and

shade;

other

figures,

including

the

Christ,

the Seraphim and Christ of the Last Byzantine formula. of Our Lord are in artisan who founds an original use of tinguished among a

the Dominations are by a weaker hand. The colossal Judgment shows a more rigid treatment of the usual The angels with symbols of the Passion, to the right a more graceful style. The Inferno shows still another his style upon a more popular Byzantine manner with color. Two different craftsmen may be especially disnumber who must have worked upon the Old and New

Testament scenes.

One, in the life of Christ, shows a strong sense of color,

but confuses and complicates the usual Byzantine scheme with little feeling for form or space, and he may be compared with the supposed Gaddo Gaddi who executed the Coronation of the Virgin over the portal of the Duomo. The other, in certain scenes from the life of the Baptist, shows

NOTES

289

a strong feeling for line and the portrayal of emotion, and, in fact, exhibits

so many of those qualities which we associate with the art of Cimabue, that we may presume that Cimabue actually worked here. The head from the Birth of St. John may well be by his own hand. It seems probable that he must have already had a reputation as a mosaicist at Florence before he was called to work upon the apse at Pisa. Salmi

in a recent

del secolo XIV

article

(/ mosaici

a Firenze, in Dedalo,

del “Bel

February,

San

Giovanni"

1931)

e la pittura

points out striking

examples of the influence of the mosaics upon contemporary painters, and agrees with Toesca in seeing the hand of Cimabue in scenes from the life

of the Baptist and also in the scene of Joseph sold by his brethren. Alíred Nicholson (Cimabue, Princeton, 1931, p.26) does not consider that Cimabue actually worked here, although he thinks that the head of Zacharias "and especially that of the youth in the Birth of John show more than the usual Byzantine approximations of Cimabue's style” F. J. Mather, Jr. (The Isaac Master etc., Princeton, 1932) has attempted to reconstruct the work of Gaddo Gaddi. He sees sufficient stylistic analogies between many of the narrative scenes and the Prophets below the windows of the Baptistery, the Coronation of the Virgin in the Florentine Duomo, the frescoes by the so-called Isaac Master in the Upper Church at Assisi, and the lower series of mosaics on the facade of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome, to attribute all of these to one hand, and following Vasari's statements in regard to the Baptistery and Santa Maria Maggiore, he gives them all to Gaddo Gaddi. Berenson (Italian Pictures of the Renaissance, Oxford. 1932) in accord with Toesca and Salmi, attributes a part of the Birth of John in the Baptistery to Cimabue. 14Milanesi in his edition of Le Vite di Vasari, Florence, 1878-85, I, p.339 ff. discusses the difference between this Fra Jacopo of 1225 and Jacopo Torriti who worked in Rome

towards the end of the century.

See, also, R. David-

sohn, Das älteste Werk der Franciscaner-Kunst, in Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, XXII, 1899, p.315 ff. 141For Andrea Tafı see Vasari's life of the same in Milanesi, of.cit., I, p.331 ff.

and for the names of other mosaic workers discussed by Milanesi see ibid, I, p.343, note 2, and G. Richa, Notizie istoriche delle chiese fiorentine, Florence,

1754, V, p.XLII.

1428, F. Rothschild and E. H. Wilkins, Hell in the Florentine Baptistery and in Giotto’s Paduan Fresco, in Art Studies, 1928. 18 H, Wilkins, Dante and the Mosaics of His “bel San Giovanni", in Speculum, II, 1927. The lively, popular style of these figures, with a tendency to caricature, was

not unknown

in later

Byzantine

art and

Toesca

compares

A HISTORY

290

OF MOSAICS

them with the miniatures of a John Climax manuscript in the Vatican (Bibl. Vatic., Cod. vat. gr. 394). It is one phase of the later Byzantine style, which in general, in its fondness for expressive and contrasting line, light and shade, and violent emotion, had much influence upon Cimabue.

The

right-hand group of figures in Cimabue's

have points in common

great Crucifixion at Assisi

with these figures of the Baptistery Inferno.

144Vasari (Milanesi), I, p. 346. Mather (op.cit., p.59) thinks that fifteen of the Prophets are in the style of Andrea Tafi and his school and that the remaining twenty-one

any marked

are by Gaddo

Gaddi, but there does not seem

stylistic difference between

to be

the two groups.

M5Van Marle, o2.cit., I, p.275. As we have already mentioned, we may trace the style of this artist in certain scenes from the life of Christ in the Bap-

tistery, and resemblances between this work and some of the later scenes from the life of the Baptist seem to me to be even more striking, as, for example, the figures of the king and queen in the St. John before Herod. Mather (of.cit., p.46) ascribes this Coronation to Gaddo Gaddi and dates it not later than ı290. He gives the interesting suggestion that it may

have been done for the old cathedral of Santa Reparata and moved to its present

position

in

demolished.

He

pieces;

for the

one

sees

1357

when

fractures two

heads,

the

west

where one

front

it was for each

of

the

old

carefully body,

and

cathedral

broken one

for

was

into

four

the

four

angels at the left. 46Van Marle, op.cit., I, pp.262 and 271; L. Dami, La basilica di S. Miniato al Monte, in Bollettino d'arte, 1915; Soulier, op.cit., p.148. The figure of Christ in the center has suffered less than the work at the sides. 147Van Marle, of.cit., I, p.275; Soulier, of.cit., p.149; Salmi (art.cit., p.554 ff.) would date this mosaic soon after the middle of the century, and asso-

ciates it with

the Guelfs who

were

expelled

from

Florence

settled in the "borgo" of San Frediano where they the construction of a portico in front of the church.

in 1247

and

were responsible for In any case it may

be considered a direct Florentine importation. The Gothic arches on the throne would place it at least as late as the middle of the century, and the iconography may show local influence, as an Ascension was executed about this time over the central portal of San Martino, probably by the

sculptor Guido da Como. The Christ and the angels are much finer than the groups of Apostles and the style has analogies with the angelic hierarchy in the upper part of the Florentine cupola. The Apostles are more hastily done

and

show

the effects of the restoration

of

1829,

but

they still bear

striking resemblances to the groups of seated Apostles of the Last Judgment at Florence. A figure of the Virgin must have occupied the space

NOTES

291

between the two groups, destroyed when the Gothic window was cut through. 148G, Trenta, I musaici del duomo di Pisa e $ loro autori, Florence, 1896; Venturi, of.cit., V. p.217

ff.; Van

Marle,

op.cit., I, p.454;

Toesca,

op.cit.,

II, p.roos ff.; Soulier, of.cit., p.151; Nicholson, of.cit., p.45 ff.; Mather, op.cit., p.65 ff.; R. Papini, Pisa, Rome, 1912. Cimabue was in Pisa in 13o1 working together with the Luccan, Giovanni di Apparecchiato on a maesté of the Madonna for the church of Santa Chiara. From 1302 to 1303 he executed the figure of St. John in the cathedral apse. A certain Francesco da San Simone di Porta a Mare, perhaps a Florentine, who with the aid of others had already worked on

the apse in 1300,

completed

the

Christ

of

the

center

in

a

rather

dry Byzantine manner (see L. Tanfani Centofanti, Notizie di artisti da documenti pisani, Pisa, 1902, p.186). Salmi (art.cit., note 23) would identify this artist with the Francesco who on May 14th, 1298 was *maestro dell'opera del mosaico" at the Florentine Baptistery and received an order from the Consuls of the Arte di Calimala not to work for the duration of their consulship (Frey in Vasari, of.cit., p.330). Although the St. John has been very generally accepted as by Cimabue, Richter (Lectures in the National Gallery, London, 1898) says "but for the evidence of the above mentioned document, no one would now dream of ascribing the work in its present condition (especially the St. John, a most

interesting

figure)

to any

great

master."

Nicholson,

however,

who

has recently studied the mosaic agrees with the consensus of opinion that it is not greatly restored and that it "is in every way characteristic of Cimabue." The Assumption of the right transept is in fairly good condition although it has been shortened at the base. The Madonna is holding her girdle and there must have been a St. Thomas to receive it. The Annunciation shows restoration but not enough

to change

the style of the work

Papini

(op.cit., p.52) ascribes both mosaics to the school of Siena. Venturi (Storia, V, p.241 ff.) sees the influence of Giovanni Pisano. Mather (op.cit., p.65) finds a strong Sienese influence which could not be before 1325

and

suggests

that they may

be by

a certain

Vicino

who

signed

the

Madonna in the great apse in 1321. Finally, Berenson (op.cit., p.580) attributes them to Traini. M9For the Roman mosaics in this chapter see the works of De Rossi, Venturi, Wilpert, and Van Marle already cited. The latest criticism may be found in Toesca, op.cit., II, p.925 ff.

19E. Müntz in Revue archéol., Sept. 1882; G. M. Zimmermann, Giotto und die Kunst Italiens im Mittelalter, Leipsiz, 1899, p.126. Zimmermann

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

292

would date it at the beginning of the thirteenth century but the style is much more that of the early twelfth century, and it also appears to be earlier than the apse of Santa Maria in Trastevere. I5'Wilpert, op.cit., II, p.s16 ff., thinks that it was in large part copied from the original mosaic of the sixth century. The iconography has much in common with early lost mosaics in Campania (see note 82) and goes back in origin to Syria or Palestine. 182Cjampini, of.cit., II, p.164; C. R. Morey, of.cit., p.16 ff. 152 Mysaici cristiani, p.48; Van Marle, of.cit., I, pp. 179 and 417; Toesca, op.cit., III, p.927; E. Male, L'art religieux en France au XIIe

siécle, Paris, 1923,

p.185, who considers that the motif of the Coronation of the Virgin was derived from France where it had such a vogue in the later Romanesque and Gothic periods. But it may possibly have been in use in Italy at a much

earlier time.

Torriti’s Coronation

in the apse of Santa

Maria

Mag-

giore may repeat an earlier theme, and there are the remains of a similar motif in the early frescoes of Santa Maria Antigua. 14A. Mufioz, Frammento di mosaico a S. Bartolommeo all’ Isola in Roma, in L'Arte,

1904.

"USE. Müntz in Revue de l'art chrétien, IX, 1898; Wilpert, op.cit., II, p.s49 ff. For the apse of St. Peter's see references under note 49 and Toesca, op.cit.,

III, p.970 and note 36, p.1o32. It is probable that Venetians worked on this apse as well as that of St. Paul's. Honorius III's letter to the Doge asks for two masters in addition to those already sent, and the fragments preserved at Poli are in the Byzantine-Venetian style and quite different from the earlier Roman work at Santa Maria in Trastevere. Toesca thinks that a head in the Museo Barracco at Rome, labelled "Byzantine Empress: sixth century." may be the head of the personification of the Church, who together with the Pope, was depicted as worshipping the enthroned Lamb. The style is very close to the head of the Pope preserved at Poli. The facade of St. Peter's was restored by Gregory IX, 1227-1241, and a colossal head of a saint, now in the Museo Petriano, resembling but not identical with the heads of Apostles from the apse of St. Paul's, may be a fragment of this work. For the apse of St. Paul's see E. Müntz in Revue de l'art chrétien, IX, 1898; Wilpert, of.cit., II, p.549 ff. The lower part shows much less restoration than the rest, particularly in the Hetimasia and adjacent angels where the style is similar to that of the early work at St. Mark's. In the chapel to the left of the choir there is a small, finely executed mosaic of the Madonna and Child, very Byzantine in style and perhaps contemporary with the apse (Wilpert, of.cit., p.558 and Van Marle, of.cit., I, p.421).

NOTES

166Yan Marle, Il musaico del Duomo

293

di Spoleto, in Rassegna d'arte, 1921;

In

the Museum of Cortona there is a mosaic of the Madonna which probably once adorned the market-place. This is a much restored and inferior work of the latter part of the twelfth century (Toesca, op.cit., III, p.ror4). It is possible that Solsternus was one of those Venetians who at about this time were working on the apses of Old St. Peter's and St. Paul's at Rome. This would account for the strong and rather un-Roman Byzantine style. 157The best general account of the work of the Cosmati may be found in A. Muüoz, Roma

di Dante, Milan-Rome,

1921.

See, also, Toesca, of.cit., III,

p.826 ff. and note 57 and 58, p.9o3, for recent bibliography and a

list of

monuments.

168P, Stanislao, La Cappella Papale di Sancta Sanctorum, Grottaferrata, 1919. 189See Van Marle, Italian Schools, I, p.499 for other references. 1605 cit. TI, p.o8r. 161The work of Torriti, both as mosaicist and painter, is admirably summarized by Toesca (op.cit., II, p.979 ff.) and includes the most recent bibliography concerning the artist and his school. 162In addition to the general references see Gerspach in Gazette des BeauxArts, Feb., 1890, and E. Müntz in Revue archéol., 1879, p.rog ff.; Ph. Lauer, Le palais du Latran, Paris, 1911, p.212 ff.; G. Rohault de Fleury, Le Latran au Moyen Age, Paris, 1877, Pl.2 (for a mosaic of Our Saviour, formerly on the facade of the church, and probably by a follower of Torriti). 168Toesca, op.cit., II, p.987 ff.; Van Marle, Italian Schools, I, p.490.

This is the only authentic work by Rusuti, although frescoes in the Upper Church at Assisi have been ascribed to him. If we are able to identify Rusuti

with

the Filippo

disappeared France,

(B.

Bizuti

Proust,

in Gazette

des

mentioned

in documents

Quelques

documents

Beaux-Arts,

XXV,

sur 1887,

which

l'histoire p.358;

H.

have

des

now

arts

en

Moranville,

Peintres romains pensionnairs de Phillippe le bel, in Bibliot. de l'École des Chartres, XLIII, 1887, p.631) we find that in 1308 he was working in France, at Poitiers, for Philippe le Bel, together with his son Giovanni and a certain Nicolas Desmaz (De Marzi). The three artists are mentioned again in 1317, and Giovanni alone, until 1322. De Rossi's investigations (of.cit.) place the decoration of the facade between 1288 and 1318.

The

lower

series

of mosaics

(cf. Milanesi in Vasari, Le

were

ascribed

by

Vasari

Vite, Y, pp.336 and 346)

to

Gaddo

Gaddi

but Vasari's confused

account, the bad condition of the work itself, and the absence of any authentic works by Gaddi (see note 145) make it impossible to substantiate this attribution. There is not enough difference between the upper and the lower series to deny the possibility of Rusuti having supervised the whole

of the work.

294

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

However, Cavalcaselle (C. and C. Douglas ed., II, p.24 ff), Van Marle (Peinture romaine, p.221) and Mather (op.cit., p.28 ff.) follow Vasari and attribute the lower series to Gaddo. Mather sees many stylistic analogies between these and the mosaics in the Florentine Baptistery, but the figures in the Baptistery mosaics are more lively and less static, more linear and less modelled and are much closer to the Byzantine-Venetian style. 164Mather, of.cit., p.7 and Fig.13. 16For Pietro Cavallini see Venturi, Storia, V, p.141 and p.217, note 1, and ' Musaici cristiani, p.47 ff.; S. Lothrop, Pietro Cavallini, in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, II, 1918; Van Marle, Italian Schools, I, p.483

ff.; and, especially, Toesca, of.cit., II, p.981 ff. and note 39 for the latest criticism of his style and additional bibliography relating to his work

influence primarily as a painter.

and

See, also, A. Busuioceanu, Pietro Cavallini

e la pittura romana del duecento e del trecento, in Ephemeris Dacoromana, annuario della Scuola Romena di Roma, III, 1925; C. R. Morey, op.cit.,

p.48 ff. Wilpert (op.cit., I, pp.628 and 756) sees no Byzantine iconography in these mosaics in spite of the fact that they follow it closely, even to details, except

in a few instances,

as in the Nativity,

where

the "taberna

meritoria," interpolated below the Virgin, refers to the local legend of a fountain of oil gushing forth at the spot where the present basilica was erected. There are two series of seventeenth-century wash drawings of these mosaics

in the Vatican Library; and

one by Ecclissi

the other by A. Ciacconio

(Cod.

(Cod.

Vat. Barb.,

Vat. Lat., 5408).

2010, fol. 16)

There

is a second

set by Ecclissi in the Library at Windsor which has been published by Morey (of.cit.). As the mosaics of the facade of San Paolo were ordered by Pope John XXII, 1316-1334, they would be among Cavallini's last works. There is a seventeenth-century drawing of them in the Vatican (Cod. Vat. Lat., 5407, fol. 63). 195A. Mufioz, Reliquie artistice della vecchia basilica Vaticana a Boville Ernica, in Bollettino d'arte, 1911; L. Venturi, La Navicella di Giotto, in L'Arte, 1922.

16’There is a brief general account Gerspach, op.cit., pp.151-160.

of the fourteenth

century

as a whole

in

168Dalton, of.cit., p.416; Diehl, Manuel, II, p.793 ff. and in Gazette des Beaux Arts, 1904-5 and in Études byzantines, p.392 ff.; A. Leval, Les principales

mosaiques, peintures et sculptures, existant à Kahrió-Djami, à Constantinople, Constantinople, 1886; Kondakof, The Mosaics of the Kahri? Djami, Odessa, 1881 (Russian); F. J. Schmitt, Mosaics and Frescoes of the Kahrià Djami, in Bulletin of the Russian Archzological Institute of Constantinople, VIII,

1902,

and

XI,

1906

excellent

plates);

ibid,

Kahrie

Djami,

Sophiä,

NOTES

1906;

Russian);

ibid, La renaissance

295

de la peinture

byzantine

au XVIe

siöcle, in Revue archéol., 1912, II; A. Mufioz, 1 musaici di Kahrie-djami in Constantinopoli, in Rassegna italiana, 1906; Rüdell, Die Kahrie-Dschamisi

in Konstantinopel, Berlin, 1908; Ainaloff, Byzantine Painting in the Fourteenth

Century,

Leningrad,

1917

(Russian);

Kahrié-Djami, Constantinople, copied Victoria and Albert Museum, 1928; J. de mosaiques à. Kahrió-Djami, in Rev. R. Byron, New Mosaic in the Karieh:

Mosaics

and

Frescoes

in

by Dmitri Ismailovitch, publ. by Ebersolt, Trois nouveaux fragments de l'Art. Ancien et Moderne, 1929; Dormition of the Virgin, in Burling-

ton Magazine, 1933; H. E. del Medico, La Komésis Rev. archéol., 1933; Muratoff, op.cit., p.152 seq.

de Kahrié

Djami,

in

19 Diehl, Manuel, II, p.804. I Ebersolt, Étude sur la topographie et les monuments de Constantinople, in Revue archéol., II, 1909, p.37 ft. I" Diehl, Manuel, II, p.804 ff.; Toesca, op.cit., II, p.927 ff.; Saccardo, op.cit., p.139 ff.; Muratoff, of.cit., p.157; R. Tozzi, 1 mosaici del Battistero di San Marco

a Venezia e l'arte bizantina, in Bollettino d'arte,

1933.

These mosaics were restored from 1867 to 1880, the Birth of St. John was entirely remade about 1628, and there are many other minor restorations from the seventeenth century onward. Fragments of the old mosaics which were replaced are now preserved in the Museo Marciano. 111, Fumi, L'Orcagna e il suo preteso mosaico nel museo di Kensington, in Revista d'arte, III, 1905. V? Gerspach, op.cit., p.16o. V*For a general account see Gerspach, of.cit., pp. 161-210. V5Paoletti di Oswaldo, Raccolte di documenti inediti, Padua, 1895; Venturi, Storia, VII 3, p.100; H. Thode, Andrea Castagno in Venedig, in Festschrift für Otto Bendorf, Vienna, 1898; L. Testi, op.cit., II, p.13 seq.; G. Fiocco, Michele Giambono, Venezia, Y, Milan-Rome, 1920; Van Marle, op.cit.,

VII, p.358;

Berenson

(of.cit., p.229)

but considers that in the Dormition, Apostles each side of the bier, and

ascribes these mosaics to Giambono the Christ, the the medallions

Madonna, the two in the frieze, are

Mantegnesque. 16Wilpert, op.cit., I, p.340; Venturi, Mwsaici cristiani, p.57; G. Frizzoni, Melozzo da Forli, ispiratore di una insigne opera di decorazione, in Bollettino d'Arte, 1916.

Y''Gerspach, op.cit., p.181 ff.; Venturi, of.cit., p.58. 175The only complete account of these later Venetian mosaics is that of Saccardo, op.cit., p.49 ff. More or less contemporary information about the seventeenth and eighteenth century mosaicists may be found in Bartolomeo Baronchello, Le Chiesa Ducale di S. Marco colle notizie del suo innalza-

A HISTORY

296 mento,

spiegazione

de’ Mosaici

Zanetti, Della Pittura Maestri, Venice, 1771. 1Saccardo, op.cit., p.87.

OF MOSAICS

ed Iscrizione etc., Venice,

Veneziana

e delle

Opere

1753

pubbliche

and A. M.

de

Veneziani

19905 cit. p.89. 1810 p.cit., p.1os ff.

182See Gerspach, of.cit., pp.186-210; Venturi, op.cit., p.58. 188The best general account is still that of Gerspach, op.cit., p.211 ff.; see, also, A. Blanchet, op.cit., p.218 ff., and Sir Wm.

B. Richmond's

article, Mosaic,

in Encyclopedia Britannica, XI edition. 184Saccardo, op.cit., p.11o ff. 185Gerspach, of.cit., p.218 ff.

I9 Gerspach, op.cit., p.223 ff. 18TE

. P. Betz, Religious Mosaics, in The Western Architect, 1927.

188W. F, Paris, The Mosaics

in the Frontal Colonnade

Library, in The Architectural Record,

189See L. Dordoré, Mauméjean,

Notes La

sur

Mosaique,

la mosaique, in

of the Detroit

Public

1921.

in L'Amour

Renaissance

de

de

l'art,

l'art,

1929;

1928; R.

Ch.

Cogniat,

Carrelages et mosaiques, in Art et Décoration, 1932. 199A brief account of some of the modern German and Swedish mosaics may be found in A. Hoff, Christliche Mosaikbildkunst, Berlin, 1927; R. Lindeman, Zu den Mosaikbildern von Max Schwarzen dampfer Europa, in Die Kunst, 1930; W. Michel, Josef Eberz, in Deutsche Kunst. u. Dek., 1930; haus in Hamburg; Mosaikbilder von W. Peiner in C. G. Heise, Mosaiken von Frans Masereel, in Die are Belgian.

und Hans Gött für den Kirchliche Mosaiken von W. Witthaus, Das Sheilder Halle, in ibid, 1931; Kunst, 1932. These last

193R, Fry, Modern Mosaic and Mr. Boris Anrep, in Burlington Magazine, 1923; H. Furst, Anrep’s Pavement in the National Gallery, in Apollo, 1929; ibid, Boris Anrep and His Mosaics, in Artwork, 1929; E. Hutton, Mosaics in Westminster Cathedral, in Burlington Magazine, 1934; Mosaic Pavement

in the East Vestibule of the National Gallery, London, by Boris Anrep, in the

Architectural

Review,

1930;

R.

Maccoll,

Modern

Life

Boris Anrep at the National Gallery, in Creative Art, May,

in

Mosaic:

1930

192See G. A. Wagner, Mosaic, Its Material and Technique, in The Western Architect, 1927 and A. E. Floegel and K. Reid, The Design and Application of Mosaic, in Pencil Points, 1927.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography includes all works and articles in periodicals consulted with the exception of some general books of reference and guide books in current use.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abel, F. M., Notes d'archéologie chrétienne sur le Sinai, in Revue biblique, 1907. Agazzi, A., Il mosaico in Italia, Milan, 1926. Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis sive Vitae Ravenatum (YX century), in Muratori, Rerum italicarum scriptores, II, Milan, 1723. Ainaloff, D. B., Mosaics of the Fourth and the Fifth Centurics (Russian), Leningrad, 1895. and Riedin, The Cathedral of Santa Sophia at Kiev (Russian), Leningrad, 1899. Hellenistic Origins of Byzantine Art (Russian), Leningrad, ıgoo. The Mosaics of the Baptistery of Albenga, in Vizantieski Vremenik, VIII, 19o1. Byzantine Painting in the Fourteenth Century, Leningrad, 1917.

(Russian) Die Mosaiken des Michaelsklosters in Kiew, in Belvedere, 1926. Alemanni, De Lateranensibus Parietinis restitutis, Rome, Rome, 1756.

1625; with an appendix,

Amadesi, G. L., Metropolitana di Ravenna, Bologna, 1748. Amorosa, A., Le basiliche cristiane di Parenzo, Parenzo, 1895. Antonelli, G., Sud modo di tagliare ed applicare il musaico, Venice, 1858. Antoniadi, M., Description of St. Sophia (in Greek), Athens, 1907. Appell, J. W., Christian Mosaic Pictures; A Catalogue of Reproductions in the South Kensington Museum, London, 1876. Artaud, F., Histoire abrégé de la peinture en mosaique, suivie de la description des mosaiques de Lyon et du Midi de la France, Lyons, 1835.

Aubert, E., Les mosaiques de la cathedrale d'Aoste, in Annales archéologiques, XVII, 1857. Aurigemma, S., / mosaici di Zliten, Rome-Milan, 1926. “Ina Roman

Villa at Zliten," in Art and Archzology,

Auroux, E., Les mosaiques de la grande mosquée de Damas

23, 1927.

et les fouilles du

moyen Euphrate, in L'amour de l'art, Nov., 1929.

Baldoria, La cappella del Zenone a Santa Prassede in Roma, in Archivio Storico dell'arte, IV, 1891. Ballu, A., Les ruines de Timgad, Paris, 1911.

300

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Barbet de Jouy, H., Les mosaiques chrétiennes des basiliques et églises de Rome, Paris, 1857.

Barbier de Montault, X., La mosaiques du Dóme à Aix-la-Chapelle, in Annales archéologique de Didron, XXVI, Paris, 1869. Les mosaiques des églises de Ravenne, Paris, 1897.

Baronchello, B., La Chiesa Ducale di S. Marco etc., Venice, 1753. Bartolo, A., Un frammento inedito dei musaici vaticani di Giovanni lettino d'arte, 1907.

VII., in Bol-

Baumstark, A., /] musaico degli Apostoli nella chiesa di Grottaferrata, in Oriens Christianus, IV, 1904.

Palestinensia, in Römische Quartalschrift, Xa, X 1906. 1 musaici di S. Apollinare Nuovo, in Rassegna Gregoriana, 1910. Bayet, Ch. L'art byzantin, Paris, 1904. Beissel, S., article on St. Mark’s, in Zeitschrift für christliche Kunst, 1895. Beljajef, D., Saint Irene, in Vizantieski

Vremenik,

(published by the Imperial

Academy of Sciences), Leningrad, II, 1895, (Russian) Bell, G. L., Churches and Monasteries of the Tür Abdin, in Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Architektur, IX.

Benesevic, Sur la date de la mosaique de la Transfiguration aw Mont Sinai, in Byzantion, I, 1924.

Mount Sinai, in Monumenta Sinaitica, I, Leningrad, 1925. (Russian) Benson, E. M., Mosaics Discovered Near Beirat, Syria, in Am. Magazine of Art,

1934. Berenson, B., Italian Pictures of the Renaissance, Oxford, 1932.

Berenson, Mary, A Modern Pilgrimage, London and New York, 1933. Bertaux, E., L'art dans l'Italie méridionale, Paris, 1901. Les mosaiques de Daphni, in Gazette des Beaux-arts, 1901. La part de Byzance dans l'art byzantin, in Journal des savants, 1911. Berthier, Fr. J. J., L'église de Sainte-Sabine à Rome, Rome, 1910. Betz, E. P., Religious Mosaics, in The Western Architect, April, 1927. Biagetti, B., Splendori di arte antica nella Basilica Liberiana rinnovellati dal Sommo Pontefice Pio XI, in L'Illustrazione Vaticana, 1931. Bieber and Rodenwaldt, Die Mosaiken des Dioskurides von Samos, in Jahrbuch der deutschen archäologischen Instituts, X XVI, 1911. Bijvank, A. W., Het mozaiek in de doopkerk bij de kathedraal te Napels (with French summary), in Nederlandsch Hist. Inst. Rome., Med., 1931. Blanchet, A., La Mosaique, Paris, 1928.

Inventaire des mosaiques de la Gaule manie),

Paris,

(Lugdunaise, Belgique et Ger-

1909.

Étude sur la décoration des edifices de la Gaule romaine, Paris, 1913.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

Mosaique gallo-romaine de Saint-Cyr-sur-Mer, in Gazette des beauxarts,

1924.

Blanchino, F., De Sacris imaginibus musivi operis a S.Syxto Papa III in Basilica Liberiana constructis etc. Dissertationes duae, Rome, 1727. Blouet, G.-A., Thermes de Caracalla, Paris, 1828. Boni, G., /! Duomo di Parenzo e suoi musaici, in Archivio storico dell'arte, 1894. Boucher, H., and A. Blanchet, Une nouvelle mosaique decouverte à Tauroentum, in Gaz. des Beaux Arts, 1930. Bouet, G., L'église de Germigny-les-Prés, in Bulletin Monumentale, 1868.

Brehier, L., L'Art byzantin, Paris, 1924. Les mosaiques mérovingiennes de Thiers, Clermont-Ferrand, Orient ou Byzance?,

in Rev. archéologique,

1910.

1907.

Bricarelli, C., San Marco, in Céviltd Cattolica, 1915. Briggs, M. S., Newly Discovered Syrian Mosaics, in Burlington Magazine, 1931. Bulard, M., Peintures et mosaiques de Delos, in Monuments Piot, XIV, 1908. Busuioceanu, A., Pierto Cavallini e la pittura romana del duecento e del trecento, in Ephemeris Dacoromana, annuario della Scuola Romena di Roma, III, 1925.

Byron, R., Hidden Splendour ; Mosaics in St. Sophia in Constantinople, in Art New

Digest, 1932. Mosaic in the Karieh: Magazine, 1933.

Dormition

of the

Virgin, in Burlington

Cabrol, F., Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, Paris, 1909. Cagnat,

R., Diane Une

et Actéon sur une mosaique africaine, in Centenaire de la Société nationale des Antiquairies de France, Paris, 1904. nouvelle mosaique decouverte en Tripolitaine, in Journal des

Savants, 1924. and Chapot, V., Manuel d'archéologie romaine, Paris, 1920, vol. II. Campbell, W. A., Excavations at Antioch-on-the-Orontes, in Am. Journal of Archzol., 1934. Carducci, Sul grande musaico recentemente scoperto in Pesaro, Pesaro, 1866. Cecchelli, C., Origine del mosaico parietale Cristiano, in Architettura e Arti decorative, 1922. Roman

Mosaics

(translated by E. Savinio), in Formes,

1930.

Chamot, M., Damascus Mosaics, in Apollo, 1931. Chehab, M., Decouverte d'une mosaique byzantine, in Gaz. des Beaux Arts, 1933.

Chirico, Mme. S. de and H. E. del Medico, Les Mosaiques du narthex de Sainte Sophie, in Gaz. des Beaux Arts, 1934. Ciampini, J., Vetera Monimenta, etc., Rome, 1690, 1697. 2nd edition, Rome,

1747.

De sacris aedificiis

a Constantino Magno constructis, Rome, 1693.

302

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

Clausse, G., Basiliques et mosaiques chrétiennes, Paris, 1893. Clermont-Ganneau, Ch., La mosaique juive de Ain-Dotg, in Comptes-rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris, 1919. Clute, E., Craftsmanship in Cosmati Mosaic, in Architecture, 1934. Cocchi, A., Le chiese di Firenze, Florence, 1903. Cogniat, R., Carrelages et mosaiques, in Art et Decoration, 1932. Conton, L., Torcello, Venice, 1927.

Crostarosa, P., Osservazione sul mosaico di Santa Pudenziana, in Nuovo Bollet. d'archeol. crist., 1895.

Crowe,

J. A., and Cavalcaselle, G.B., A New History of Painting in Italy, London, 1864 (edited by Langton Douglas, London, 1903.) Crowfoot, J. W., Churches at Jerash, Jerusalem, 1931. Dalton, O. M., Byzantine Art and Archeology, Oxford, 1911. East Christian Art. Oxford, 1925. Dami, L., La basilica di San Miniato al Monte, in Bollettino d'Arte,

1915.

Davidsohn, R., Forschungen zu Geschichte von Florenz, Berlin, 1896. Das älteste Werk der Franciscaner-Kunst, in Rep. für Kunstwissenschaft, XXII, 1899. Demus, O., Uber einige venezianische Mosaiken des 13 jahr-kunderts, in Belve-

dere, 1931. Die Mosaiken von San Marco in Venedig,

1100-1300, Vienna-Leipzig,

1935. Deperis, P., // Duomo di Parenzo e i suoi mosaici, in Atti Istriana di Arch. e Stor. Patr., X, 1894.

e memorie della Soc.

Didron M., Manuel d'iconographie chrétienne, Paris, 1845. Diehl, Ch., Mosaiques byzantines de Saint-Luc, in Mon.Piot, III, 1897.

Sainte-Sophie de Salonique, in ibid:, XVI, 1909. Les mosaiques de Saint-Demetrius de Salonique, in ibid., XVIII, 1911. L'Église et les mosaiques du couvent de Saint-Luc en Phocide, Paris. 1889.

Venise, Paris, 1915. Le Tourneau, and H. Saladin, Les monuments chrétiens de Salonique, Paris,

1918.

Etudes byzantines, Paris, 1905. Les origines orientales de l'art byzantin, in L'Amour de l'Art, 1924. Manuel d'art byzantin, Ravenne, Paris, 1927.

2d ed., Paris,

1925-6.

L'Art chrétien primitif et l'art. byzantin, Paris and Brussels, 1929. La peinture byzantine, Paris, 1933. Diez, E., and O. Demus, Byzantine Mosaics in Greece, Hosios Lucas and Daphni, Cambridge, Mass., 1931.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

303

Dobbert, E., Analysis of Riedin’s criticisms on St. Mark’s, in Repertorium für Kuntswissenschaft,

XI, X

1898.

Dordoré, L., Notes sur la mosaique, in L'Amour de l'art, 1928. Duchesne, ed., Liber Pontificalis, Paris, 1886. Dunand, M., Rapport sur une mission archéologique au Djebel Druze, in Syria, VII, 1926.

Duthuit, G., Byzance et l'art du XII siecle, Paris, 1926. Dütschke, H., Ravennatische Studien, Leipzig, 1909.

Ebersolt, J.

Étude sur la topographie et les monuments

de Constantinople, in

Revue Archéol., II, 1909.

Le grand palais de Constantinople et le livre des cérémonies, Paris, 1910. and Thiers, Le églises de Constantinople, Paris, Les arts somptuaires de Byzance, Paris, 1923.

1013.

Trois nouveaux fragments de mosaiques a Kahrie-Djami

(with Eng-

lish summary), in Revue de l'art ancien et moderne, 1929.

Enlart, C., Manuel d'archéologie francaise, Paris, 1919. Fabia, P., Mosaiques romaines des Musées de Lyon, Lyons, 1923. Recherches sur les mosaiques romaines de Lyon, Lyons, 1924. Fabri, F., Le Sagre memorie di Ravenna, Venice, 1664.

Fasioli, O., 1 mosaici di Aquileia, Rome, 1915. Filangieri di Candida, A., / restauri dei musaici del Battistero di S. Giovanni ᾿

in Fonte, in L'Arte,

1898.

Fiocco, G., Michele Giambono, Venezie, Milan-Rome, 1920. Floegel, A. E., and Reid, K., The Design and Application of Mosaic, in Pencil Points, March, 1927. Fontana, G., Mosaici della primitiva epoca delle chiese di Roma, Rome, 1870. Fossati, Aya Sofia, London, 1852. Frey, K., Vasari, Part I, vol. I, Munich, 1911. Friend, A. M., Jr.,

The Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin Manu-

scripts, Part II, in Art Studies, 1929. Frizzoni,

G., Melozza

da Forli, ispiratore di una

insigne opera di decorazione,

in Bollettino d'arte, 1916. Frothingham, A. L., The Monuments of Christian Rome, New York, new ed, 1925. Les mosaiques de Grottaferrata, in Gazette archéol., 1883. Fry, R., Modern Mosaic and Mr. Boris Anrep, in Burlington Magazine, 1923. Furietti, G. A., De Musivis vel pictoriae artis origine, Rome, 1752. Furst, H., Anrep's Pavement in the National Gallery, in Apollo, IX, 1929. Boris Anrep and His Mosaics, in Artwork, 1929.

304

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Galante, G.-A., I musaici del battistero di Napoli, in Nuovo Bollettino di arch. crist., 1900. Galassi, G., La cosídetta decadenza nell'arte musiva ravennate, in Felix Ravenna,

1914. Roma

o Bisanzio,

Rome,

1930.

Garrucci, R., Storia del'arte cristiana nei primi otto secoli della Chiesa, Prato, 1872-1880.

Gauckler,

P., Domaine des Laberii à Uthina, in Monuments Piot, Les mosaiques virgiliennes de Sousse, in ibid, IV, 1898.

III,

1897.

Mosaiques tombales d'une chapelle de martyrs à Thabraca, in ibid, XIII,

1907.

Opus musivum in Daremberg et Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquities, vol. IH, Paris, 1877 seq. Gayet, A., L'art arabe, Paris, 1893. George, W. S., The Church of Saint Eirene at Constantinople, London, 1912. Germer-Durand, Décoration de la basilique de Bethléem, in Échos de Nótre-Dame de France, 1891. Gerola, G., /l mosaico absidale della Ursiana, in Felix Ravenna, V, 1912.

Gerspach, M., (article on technique), in Gazette des beaux-arts, 1880. La mosaique, Paris, 1882, (2d edition, 1886).

La mosaique absidéale de St. Jean de Latran, in Gazette des beauxarts,

189o.

Ghigi, Sac. Sante, 11 Mausoleo di Galla Placidia, Bergamo, 1910. Glück, H., Die christliche Kunst des Ostens, Berlin, 1923. Gombosi, G., 11 piz antico ciclo di mosaici di San Marco, in Dedalo, 1923.

Graber, André, La Décoration byzantine, Paris and Brussels, 1928. Gravina, D., // Duomo di Monreale, Palermo, 1859, et seq. Grisar, H., 11 mosaico di Santa Pudenziana a Roma coll'edifici dei luoghi santi, in Civiltá Cattolica, III, 1895 and XII, 1897. Il tempio nel mosaici di Santa Maria Maggiore, in ibid., XII, 1897. Il Sancta Sanctorum, Rome, 1907. Roma alla fine del mondo antico, Rome, 1908. Il musaico dell'Oratorio di San Venanzio, in Civiltá Cattolica, 1898.

de Gruneisen, W., Le Portrait. Rome, 1911.

Traditions hellenistiques et influences orientales,

Gsell, S., Monuments antiques de l'Algérie, Paris, 19got. Guthe, Dr. Die Mosaikkarte von Madaba, Leipzig, 1906. Haas, K. v., Die Mosaiken im Dom von Triest, Vienna, 1859.

Hamlin, T. F., article Mosaic, in Encycl. Brit., XIV ed., 1929. Harbeson, J. F., Design in Modern Architecture; Stained Glass and Mosaic, in Pencil Points,

1930.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

305

Haseloff, A., J musaici di Casaranello, in Bollettino d'Arte, 1907. Heise, C. G., Mosaiken

von Frans Masereel, in Die Kunst,

1932.

Heisenberg, A., Die alten Mosaiken der Apostelkirche und der Hagia Sophia, in Φένια of the National University of Greece, 1912. Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche ; zwei Basiliken Konstantins, Leipzig, 1908. Hermanin, F., article Cavallini in Thieme-Becker, Kiinstler-Lexicon, vol. VI, 1912; superseding his article on Cavallini in Le gallerie ttaliane, Rome, 1902. Herzfeld, Genesis der islamischen Kunst, in Der Islam, Y, 1910.

Hettner, F., Mosaic of Monnus at Trier, in Westdeutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kunst, X, 1891. Hinks, R., Roman Carpets, in Architectural Review, Hoff, A., Christliche Mosaikbildkunst, Berlin, 1927.

1931.

Hutton, E., Mosaics in Westminster Cathedral, in Burlington Magazine, 1934. Ippel, A., Mosaikstudien, in Deutsch Archaol. Inst. Mitt. Rom, 1930. Jackson, F. H., The Shores of the Adriatic, the Austrian Side, London, 1908. Jackson, T. G., Byzantine and Romanesque Architecture, Cambridge, 1920. Jacoby, A., Das geographische Mosaik von Madaba, Leipzig, 1905. Jatta, M., Le rappresentanze figurate delle provincie romane, Rome,

1908.

Jessen, P., Die Darstellung des Weltgerichts bis auf Michelangelo, Berlin, 1883. Jubaru, F., La decorazione bacchica del Mausoleo di Santa Costanza, in L'Arte, 1904. Kaufman, K. M., Handbuch der christlichen Archäologie, 3d ed. Paderborn, 1922.

Kisa, A., Das Glas im Altertume, Leipzig, 1908. Kondakof, N., Voyage to Sinai (Russian), Odessa, 1882. The Mosaics of the Kahrié Djami, (Russian) Odessa, Kraus, F.-X., Geschichte der christlichen Kunst, Freiburg, 1896.

1881.

Kreutz, G. and L., La Basilica di San Marco in Venezia esposta, etc. Venice, 1843.

Kühnel, E., Die Mosaiken der Omayadenmoschee in Damaskus, in Der Cicerone, May,

1930.

Kunstle, C. B., Das Mausoleum von Santa Costanza und sein Mosaiken nach De Rossi, in Römische Quartalschrift, 1890. Kurth, J., Die Wandmosaiken von Ravenna, Leipzig, 1901. Larbarte, J., Le palais imperiale de Constantinople, Paris, 1861.

Laborde, A. de., Description d'un pavé en mosaique . . . d'Italica, Paris, an X (1802). Lafaye, G., Inventaire des mosaiques

de la Gaule;

Narbonnaise

et

Aquitaine,

Paris, 1909. Mosaique de Saint-Romain-en-Gal, in Revue archéologique, 1892.

A HISTORY

306

OF MOSAICS

Lasareff, V., Early Italo-Byzantine Painting in Sicily, in Burlington Magasine,

1933. Lauer, Ph., Le palais du Latran, Paris, 1911. Lauriére, J. de, L'abside de St. Jean de Latran, in Bulletin Monumental, V série,

VII, 1879. Lazzarini, V., Una

incrizione Torcellana del secolo VII, in Atti del R. Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 1914.

Leclerq, H., article Art byzantin in Cabrol, Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne, Paris,

1909.

Le Coeur, Ch., Mosaiques de Jurangon et de Bielle (Basse-Pyrénées), Pau, 1856. Lefort, L., La mosaique de Ste. Prudentienne

à Rome, in Revue archéol., YI, 1874.

Nouvelles observations sur la mosaique de Ste. Pudentienne, in Nuovo Bullett. d'archéol. crist., 1896. Legrand, E., ed., Revue des études grecques, IX, 1896. Description by Constantine the Rhodian of the lost mosaics of the Church of the Apostles). Leib, B., Rome, Kiev et Byzance à la fin du Xle siecle, Paris, 1924. Lersch, L., Das

Kólner Mosaik,

Bonn,

1846.

Lethaby and Swainson, The Church of Sancta Sophia, Constantinople, London and New York, 1894. Leval, A., Les principales mosaiques, peintures et sculptures, existant à KahriéDjami, à Constantinople, Constantinople, 1886. Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Hanover, 1878. Lindemann, R., Zu den Mosaikbilden von Max Schwarzer und Hans Gott für

Max

den dampfer Europa, in Die Kunst, 1930. Unolds Mosaikbilder für den Dampfer Europa, in Die Kunst, 1930.

Lorey, E. de, Les mosaiques du VlIIIe siécle de la mosgüee des Damas, in Cashiers d'art, vol. 4, no. 7, 1929.

Omeiyades

à

A Novel Aspect of Byzantine Art of the Eighth Century ; Mosaics in Mosque 1930.

of the

Omayyads

at Damascus,

in Parnassus,

May

The Mosaics of the Mosque of the Omayyads at Damascus, in Syria, 1931. L'hellónisme et l'Orient dans les mosaiques de la mosquée des Omaiyades, in Ars Islam, 1934. Loriquet, Ch., La Mosaique des Promenades et autres trouvées à Reims, Rheims, 1862.

Los Rios, J.-A. de, Mosaics gentiliscos ; mosaico de Galatea en Elche, Madrid, 1877.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

307

Lothrop, S., Pierto Cavallini, in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, II, I918.

Lowrie, W., Monuments of the Early Church, new ed., New York, 1923. Maccoll, R., Modern Life in Mosaic: Boris Anrep at the National Gallery, in Creative Art, May, 1930. Maillart, M., L'Art byzantin, Paris, Garnier fr., no date. Male, E., L'Art religieux du XIIe siécle en France, Paris, 1922. L'Art religieux du XIIIe siecle en France, Paris, 1923. Margais, G., Manuel d'art musulman, Paris, 1926. Marconi, P., 11 mosaico pesarese di Leda, in Bollettino d'arte, 1933. Marrucchi, O., Le recente scoperte nel Duomo di Parenzo, in Nuovo Bulletino di archeologia

cristiana,

1896.

Sta. Agata dei Goti, in Giornale Arcadico, 1891. Di Marzo, Delle belle arti in Sicilia dai Normani sino alla fine del secolo XIV, Palermo,

no date.

Mason, J. A., Turquoise Mosaic from Northern Mexico, bibliog. for the Pennsylvania Museum,

Jan.,

1929.

Mather, F. J. Jr., The Isaac Master. A Reconstruction of the work of Gaddo Gaddi, Princeton, 1932. Mauméjean, Ch., La Mosaique, in Rennaissance de l'art, 1929. Mayes, W. E., Removing a Roman Pavement, in Museums Journal, 1933. McKinney, ΒΕ. J., Museum Enters Archaeological Field: Mosaic from a Roman Villa at Antioch, Syria, in Baltimore Mus. N. Rec., 1934. Medico, H. E., del, La Koimesis de Kahrié Djami, in Revue Archéol., 1933. Mella, E., 11 Battistero di Agrate conturbia e di Albenga, in Atti della Soc. di Arch. e Belli di Torino, 1883. Merlin, A., Inventaire des mosaiques de la Gaule et de l'Afrique, Paris, 1915. La mosaique du seigneur Julius à Carthage, Paris, 1923. (Extr. Bulletin archéologique, 1921).

and L., Poinssot, Deux mosaiques de Tunisie à sujets prophylactiques, Museé du Bardo, bibliog. f il plan Acad. Mem., vol. 34, 1934.

Inscr. Paris mon. et

Michel, R., Die Mosaiken von Joseph Ebertz, in Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration, 1930. Migeon, G., Les mosaiques de la grande mosquée de Damas, in Revue Archéolo-

gique, 1929. Milanesi,

Gaetano, Del arte del vetro pel musaico Bologna,

(XVI

century), reprinted,

1864.

Milanesi, G., ed., Le vite di Vasari, Florence, 1878-85. Millet, Bysance et non l'Orient, in Rev. archéologique,

1908.

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

308

Millet, G., L'Art byzantin in Michel, Histoire de l'art, Paris, 1905 and 1908. vols.

I and II. Mosaiques de Daphni, in Mon. Piot, III, 1897. Les mosaiques de Daphni, Paris, 1899.

Recherches sur l'eonographie de l'Évangile, Paris, 1916. Millin, A. L., Description d'une mosaique antique du Musée Pio-Clementin, Paris, 1829.

Moranville, H., Peintures romains pensionnairs de Phillippe le Bel, in Bibliot. de l'École des Chartes, XLIII, 1887. Morassi, A., La chiesetta di Santa Mario Formosa o del Canneto a Pola, in Bollettino d'Arte, Rome, 1924.

Morey, C. R., Lost Mosaics and Frescoes of Rome Princeton-Oxford, 1915. Morgan,

of the Medisval

The Sources of Medigval Style, in The Art Bulletin, Th., Romano-British Pavements, London, 1886.

Period,

1924.

Morris, E. H., The Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itzd, Carnegie Institute, Washington, D. C., 1931. Mufioz,

A., Frammento

di musaico

a S. Bartolommeo

all’Isola

in

Roma,

in

L'Arte, 1904. I musaici di Kahrie-djami in Constantinopoli, in Rassegna Italiana, 1906.

San Giovanni in Fonte, in L'Arte, 1908.

Reliquie artistiche della vecchie basilica Vaticana a Boville Ernica, in Bolletino

d'arte,

1911.

Sant'Agatha dei Goti, Rome, 1923. Müntz, E., La Mosaique chrétienne pendant les premiers siàcles. Paris, 1893. Notes

sur les mosaiques

chrétiennes

de

1874-1893, viz: Santa Prassede, 1877;

Des

éléments

antique

dans

l'Italie,

1875;

in Revue

archéol.,

Oratory of John

les mosaiques

VII,

romaines

du

moyen Gge, 1879; Triclinium of the Lateran, 1884; San Paolo Juori-le-mure, 1898. Les mosaiques 1886.

byzantines portatives, in Bulletin monumental,

Caen,

The Lost Mosaics of Rome, and The Lost Mosaics of Ravenna, in American Journal of Archzology, 1885 and Muratoff, P., La pittura bizantina, Rome (no date).

1886.

Navone, G., Di un mosaico di Pietro Cavallini in S. Maria Transtiberiana etc., in Arch. dell Soc. Rom. di Stor. Patr., 1877.

Neumann, G., Die Markuskirche in Venedig, in Preussische Jahrbuch, 1892. Neuss, Wm., Die Kunst der alten Christen, Augsburg, 1926. Newcomb, R., The Art of the Mosaicist, in The Western Architect, April, 1927.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

309

Nicholson, A., Cimabue, Princeton, 1931. Nogara, B., 1 mosaici antichi conservati nel palazzi del Vaticano e del Laterano, Milan, 1910. Oligier, L., Due mosaici con S. Francesco delle chiesa di Araceli in Roma, Archivio Francisc. Hist., IV, 1911. Ongania (edit.), La basilica di San Marco a Venezia, Venice, 1878-1895. Orlandos, A. C., Monuments byzantins de Chios, Athens, 1930. Oswaldo, P. di, Raccolte di documenti inediti, Padua, 1895.

Ouspenski,

F. L., Recently Izvjestija

Discovered (Bulletin

Mosaics

of

the

of Constantinople), XIV,

at St. Demetrius,

Russian

in

Salonika;

Archsological

Institute

1908.

Pachtere, F. G. de, Inventaire des mosaiques de la Gaule et de l'Afrique, vol. III, (Afrique proconsulaire, Numidie, Maurétanie), Paris, 1911. Papageorgiou, P. N., St. Demetrius, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XVII, 1908. Papini, R., Pisa, Rome, 1912.

Paris, W. F., The Mosaics in the Frontal Colonnade of the Detroit Public Library, in Architectural Record, 1921. Parker, H., Mosaic Pictures in Rome and Ravenna, Oxford, 1866. Pavlovsky, A. A., Iconographie de la chappelle palatine, Paris, 1895.

Ibid, in Revue archéol., XXV, 1894. Perdrizet and Chesnay, La métropole de Serres, in Mon. Piot, X, 1904. Phillips, L. M., Form and Colour, London, 1915. Pierce, H. and R. Tyler, L'Art byzantin, Paris, 1932.

Poinssot, L. and Lantier, R., Les mosaiques de la maison d'Adriane à Carthage, in Monuments

Piot, XXVII,

1924.

Pozzi, J., Les mosaiques de Sainte-Sophie, in Beaux Arts, 1933. La réapparition des mosaiques

gique,

de Sainte-Sophie,

in Revue

Archéolo-

1934.

Prévost, La basilique de Théodulfe et la paroisse de Germigny-des Prés, Orleans, 1889.

Prost, B., Quelques documents sur l'histoire des arts en France, in Gazette des Beaux-Arts,

Puig y Cadafalch,

XXXV,

1887.

J., L'arquitectura romanica 1918.

a Catalunya,

Barcelona,

1909-

^

Quaresimus, Elucidatio Terrae sanctae, Rome, 1639. Quitt, J., Der Mosaikencyclus von San Vitale, in Byzantinische

Vienna, III, 1903. Ratti, A., 11 piu antico ritratto di S. Ambrogio, Milan, 1897.

Reau, L., L'Art russe, Paris. Renan, A., Torcello, in Gazette des beaux-arts, 1888. Renan, E., Mission de Phenicie, Paris, 1864-1874.

Denkmaler,

A HISTORY

310

Ricci, C., Ravenna, Bergamo, 1902. La chiesa di San Michele

OF MOSAICS

"ad Frigiselo" in Ravenna,

in Rassegna

d'arte, V, 1905.

Il Mausoleo

di Galla Placidia in Ravenna,

Rome,

1914.

(Also in

Bollettino d'Arte, 1913-14) Appunti per la storia del mosaico, in Bollettino d'Arte, 1914. Il battistero della Cattedrale (Ravenna), Rome, 1932. Rice, D. Talbot, New Light on Byzantine Portative Mosaics, in Apollo, 1933.

Richa, G., Notizie istoriche delle chiese fiorentine, Florence, 1754. Richmond, Sir Wm. B., article Mosaic in Encycl. Brit., XI ed., 1910. Richter, J. P., Die Mosaiken von Ravenna, Vienna, 1878. Quellen der byzantinischen

Kunstgeschichte, Vienna,

1897.

Lectures in the National Gallery, London, 1898. and A. C. Taylor, The Golden Age of Classical Christian Art, London, 1904. Riedin, E. K., The Mosaics of the Churches of Ravenna, (Russian) Leningrad, 1896.

Riegel, A., Die spätrömische Kunstindustrie, Vienna, 1901 (new ed. 1927) Stilfragen, Berlin, 1893. Riolo, G., Dell-artifici o pratico dei mosaici antichi e moderni, Palermo, 1870. Rivoira, G., Le origini dell'archittetura lombarda, Rome, 1901, translated under

title Lombardic Architecture: its origin and development, by G. McN. Rushforth, London, 1910. Robertson, A., The Bible of St. Mark’s, London, 1898. Rohault de Fleury, G., Le Latran au Moyen Age, Paris, 1877.

Rolffs, W., Geschichte der Malerei Neapels, Leipzig, 1910. Romanelli, P., Leptis Magna, Rome, 1925. Rossi, G. B. de, Musaici cristiani e saggi dei pavimenti delle chiese di Roma anteriori al Secolo XV, Rome, 1870-1893.

Musaico d'un battistero presso la cattedrale di Die, in Bolletino di archeologia cristiana, V, 1867. La basilica di S. Stefano Rotondo etc., Rome,

1886.

Della decorazione interna del Mausoleo Constantiniano della via Nomentana appellato Santa Costanza, in Bollett. del’Istit. di Corresp. Archeol.,

1889.

Rothschild, E. F., and Wilkins, E. H., Hell in the Florentine Baptistery Mosaic and in Giotto's Paduan

Fresco,

in Art Studies,

Rouard, E., Rapport sur les fouilles faites à Aix, Aix, 1843. Rubeus, Historiarum Ravennatum,

Venice,

1589.

Rüdell, Die Kahrié-Dschamisi in Konstantinopel, Berlin, 1908.

1928.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

311

Rutter, F., Mosaics in the Dome of St. Sophia, Constantinople, in International Studio, 1930. Saccardo, P., Les Mosaiques de Saint-Marc à Venise, Venice, 1897, and in Ongania, La Basilica di San Marco, vol. III, Venice, 1878-93. Saladin-Migeon, Manuel d'art musulman, Paris, 2d ed., 1926. Salazaro, D., Monumenti dell'arte meridionale d’Italia, Naples, 1882. Salmi, M., I mosaici del “Bel San Giovanni" e la pittura del secolo XIII a Firenze, in Dedalo, February, 1931. Salzenberg, W., Altchristliche Baudenkmäler von Konstantinopel,

Berlin,

1854.

Sangiorgi, G., 1, Battistero della basilica Ursiana di Ravenna, Rome, 1900. Saville, M. H., Turquois Mosaic Art in Ancient Mexico, New York, 1922. Scaglia, S., 1 musaici antiche della basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, 1910.

Schlumberger, G., L'Épopée byzantine, Paris, 1896-1905. Schmarzow, A., Der Kuppelraum von Santa Costanza in Rom etc., Leipzig, 1904. Schmit, Th., The Panagia Angelokistos, in Izvjestija, XV, 1911. Die Koimesis-Kirche von Nikaia, Berlin and Leipzig, 1927. Mosaics and Frescoes of the Kahrié djami, in Izvjestija, (published by the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Leningrad) VIII, 1902 and ibid., XI, 1906 (Russian). Schmitt, F. J., Kakrié djami (Russian), Sophia, 1906. The Mosaics of the Monastery of St. Luke, (Russian) Kharkof, 1914. Schulten, A., Die Mosaik-Carte von Madaba, Berlin, 1900. Schultz, B., Die Kirchenbauten auf der Insel Torcello, Berlin, 1927. Schuitz, Weir, and Barnsley, S. H., The Monastery of St. Luke in Stiris in Phocis, London, ı901. The Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem, London, 1910. Serradifalco, duca di, 11 Duomo di Monreale, Palermo, 1838. Sexton, R. W., Mosaic Art; an Old Decorative Medium, in California Arts and Architecture, 1931.

Sherrill, C. H., Mosaics, London, 1932. Smirnof, J. I, Tke Mosaics of Cyprus, in Vizantieski Vremenik, IV, 1897. (Russian) The Mosaics of Santa Sophia, Salonika, in ibid. V, 1898. Soulier, C., Les influences orientales dans la peinture toscane, Paris, 1924. Sorrentino, A., La basilica di Santa Restituta in Napoli, in Bollettino d'Arte, 1909. Spreti, De amplitudine, eversione et restauratione urbis Ravennae, Ravenna,

1793-1796. Compendio istorico dell'arte di compone i musaici con la descrizione de’ musaici . . . nelle basiliche di Ravenna etc., Ravenna, 1804.

312

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Stanislao, P., La Cappella Papale di Sancta Sanctorum, Grottaferrata, 1919. Stein, Sir Aurel, Ancient Khotan, London,

Strong, E., Art in Ancient Rome.

1907.

2 vols., London, 1929.

Strzygowski, J., Nea Moni auf Chios, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, V, 1896, and in Vizantieski Vremenik, VI, 1899. Das neu-gefundene Orpheus-Mosaik in Jerusalem, in Zeitschrift des deutschen Palestina-Vereins, XIV, X 1901.

Orient oder Rom, Leipzig, 1901. Antiochenische Kunst, in Oriens Christianus, 1902. Felsendom und Aksamoschee, in Der Islam, II, 1910. Ravenna als Vorort aramaischen Kunst, in Oriens Christianus, 1915. Ursprung der christlichen Kirchenkunst, Leipzig, 1920. (Translated with notes by Dalton under title East Christian Art.) Sukenik, J. L., Discovery of an Ancient Synagogue, Beth Alpha, Palestine, in

Art and Archzology, 1932. Swift, E. H., Byzantine Gold Mosaic, in Am. Journal of Archaol., 1934. Trafrali, O., St. Demetrius, Salonika, in Revue archéol., 1909, II and 1910, I. Thessalonique, des origines au XIV siécle, Paris, 1919. Tanfani Centofanti, L., Notizie di artisti da documenti pisani, Pisa, 1898. Tarlazzi, A., Memorie sacre di Ravenna, Ravenna, 1852. Terzi, Amari, and Cavallari, La Cappella di S. Pietro nella reggia di Palermo,

Palermo, 1889. Testi, L., Storia della pittura veneziana, Bergamo, 1909. Testi Rasponi, A., ed., Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis, in Raccolta degli Storici italiani, Milan, 1924 et seq. Thieme und Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler, Leipzig, 1910

seq. Thode, H., Andrea Castagno in Venedig, in Festschrift für Otto Bendorf, Vienna, 1898. Tikkanen, J. J., Die Genesismosaiken von San Marco in Venedig, Helsingfors, 1889; ibid. in Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennice, Helsingfors, 1889; and in Archivio Storico dell'arte, 1888.

Toesca, P., Storia dell'arte italiana, Turin, 1915 seq. La pittura e la miniatura nella Lombardia, Milan, 1912. Tomai, T., Historia di Ravenna, Venice, 1580. Tozzi, O., Storia della basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome,

1904.

Tozzi, R., 7 mosaici del Battistero di San Marco a Venezia e l'arte bizantina, in Bollettino d'arte, 1933. Trenta, G., 7 musaici del duomo di Pisa e i loro autori, Florence, 1896. Vailhé, S., La mosaique de la Transfiguration au Sinai est-telle de Justinien?, in

Revue de l'Orient chrétien, II, 1907.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

313

Van Berchem, Marg., and E. Clouzot, Mosaiques chrétiennes, Geneva, 1924. The Mosaics

of the Dome

of the Rock and of the Great Mosque

at

Damascus. (transl. by K. A. C. Creswell, reprint from ibid., Early Muslim Architecture, Oxford, 1932.) art., Damascus, in Monuments

Piot, 1930.

Van Marle, R., La Peinture romaine au moyen-age, Strassburg, 1921.

Van

The Development of the Italian Schools of Painting, The Hague, vol. I, 1923. Il musaico del Duomo di Spoleto, in Rassegna d'arte Umbra, 1921. Millingen, A., Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, London-New York,

1912. Venturi, A., Storia dell'arte italiana, Milan,

1904 seq.

Musaici cristiani in Roma, Rome, 1925. Venturi, L., La Navicella di Giotto, in L'Arte, 1922. Villefosse, A. H. de, Lycurge et Ambrosie; mosaique découverte à SainteColombe-lez-Vienne (Rhone), in Annuaire de l'École pratique des hautes-études, Paris, 1907. Mosaique de Phoebus à Sens, in Comptes-Rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,

1910.

Vincent and Abel, Bethlehem, Paris, 1914. Vitet,

L., Dissertation sur les mosaiques chrétiennes, 1862 and 1863. Les Mosaiques chrétiennes de Rome.

in Journal

des Savants,

De Vogüé, Marquis de, Les Eglises de Terre-Sainte, Paris, 1860. Le temple de Jérusalem, Paris, 1864. Voss, G., Das jungste Gericht in der bildenden Kunst des frühen Mittelalters, in Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, VIII, Leipzig, 1884. Wagner, G. A., Mosaic, Its Material and Technique, in The Western Architect, April, 1927.

Weerth, M. D., Specimens of the Geometrical Mosaic of the Middle Ages with a Brief Historical Notice of the Art, London, 1848. Der Wettbewerb für Mosaiken für dem Kongresssaal des Deutschen Museums, in Der Kunst, Feb., 1935. Whittemore, Thomas, The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul, Oxford, 1933. Wickhoff, F., Der Apsismosaik in der Basilica des Heilige Felix zu Nola, in Römische Quartalschrift, 1889. Die Wiener Genesis, Vienna, 1895.

Wiegand, Die Geburtskirche in Bethlehem, Leipzig, 1911. Sinai, Berlin, 1920. Wilkins, E. H., Dante and the Mosaics of his “bel San Giovanni," in Speculum, TI, 1927.

314

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Wilmowsky, J. N. von, Rómische Mosaiken aus Trier und dessen

Umgegend,

Treves, 1888. Die rómische Villa zu Nennig und ihr Mosaik, Bonn, 1865. Wilpert, J., Die rómischen Mosaiken und Malereien der Christlichen Bauten vom

IV bis XIII Jahrhundert, Freiburg, 1917. La decorazione della Basilica Lateranense, in Riv. di Archeol. Christiana, 1921.

Witthaus, W., Das Shellhaus in Hamburg; Mosaikbilder von W. Peiner in der Halle, in Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration, 1931. Wheeler, R. E. M., Experiment in Removing a Fragment of a Roman in Museums Journal, 1933. Wlha and Niemann, Der Dom von Parenzo, Vienna, (no date).

Pavement,

Wolanska, J., Ein römisches mosaik aus Balacza, in Oesterische Archaol. Inst. Jahresh.,

1929.

Woodruff, H., Iconography and Date oj the Mosaics of La Daurade, in Art Bulletin, 1931. Woolley, C. Leonard, The Development of Sumerian Art, London, 1935. Wulff, O., Die Koimesiskirche in Nicda und ihre Mosaiken, Strassbourg, 1903. Altchristliche und byzantinische Kunst, Berlin, 1914-18. Die Mosaiken der Nea Moni von Chios, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXV, 1925.

Das Ravennatische Mosaic von San Michele in Affricisco im Kaiser Friedrich-Museum, in Jahrbuch Kunstsammlungen, XV, X 1904.

Zanetti, A. M., Della Pittura

Veneziana

der

e delle Opere

Königlich

preuszischen

publiche de Veneziani

Maestri, Venice, 1771. Zimmermann, G. M., Giotto und die Kunst Italiens im Mittelalter, Leipzig, 1899.

GLOSSARY

AND

INDEX

GLOSSARY Anastasis. Term used in East Christian or Byzantine art for the scene which in the West is called the Harrowing of Hell, or, Descent into Hell. Usually connected with the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus (ch. xviii) where John the Baptist is said to have foretold the descent of Our Lord into Hell. Bema. The rudimentary transept of the Early Christian basilica. Deesis. In Byzantine art, term used for a symbolic group of Christ, the Virgin, and St. John the Baptist. Dormition. 'Term used in Byzantine art for the Death of the Virgin whose body lies on a bier round which the Apostles are grouped. Christ stands in the center holding in His arms the soul of His mother, represented as a diminutive human figure. Ecclesia ex Circumcisione. Terms used to denote the Jewish Church. Ecclesia ex Gentibus. Term used to denote the Church of the Gentiles. Etimasis or Hetimasia. Means "Preparation of the Throne" and alludes to the coming of Our Lord as Judge. In early examples the throne has upon it a sacred monogram or scroll; then, an open book replaces the scroll, and finally, in fully developed Byzantine iconography, a diadem and the instruments of the Passion are added and it usually appears in Last Judgement scenes. Labarum. The Constantinian standard upon which was represented the sacred monogram of Christ. Narthex. A vestibule of one or more stories, usually open and colonnaded at the front, and placed before a building. Oront. Term used in Early Christian and Byzantine art to denote a standing figure, front view, with the arms raised in the act of prayer. Pantocrator. In fully developed Byzantine iconography, the type of Our Lord as Judge of humanity. Pendentive. An inverted, triangular, concave piece of masonry used to support a section of a dome. Squinch. A slab or small arch thrown across the angle of a square or polygon to render its shape more nearly round in order to receive the base of a dome. Traditio Legis. Scene in which Our Lord gives the Law to St. Peter and St. Paul who stand to right and left, the book

or scroll being actually handed to St. Peter. Triclinium. The Roman dining-room, so-called because furnished with three couches. Triumphal arch. The arch immediately a church.

it was

in front of the apse

of

Pace A-anni-padda, temple of Abd al Melek, Caliph “Academy oí Plato” Aegeans

28

137 49 30 31

Agra Ainaloff . Ainay, church at, pavement Aix-la-Chapelle, palace . Albenga, baptistery All-Saints Church, Richmond, Va.. Altar-pieces, St. Peter's . American Church of St. Paul, Rome Anrep, Boris, pavements by . Anthée, mosaic from . Antioch, pavements . as ἃ radiating center Antoniazzo Romano Aphrodosius, legend of . Apocrypha Apollonius, mosaicist Aquileia, pavement Aquino, mosaic, note 128 Ara Pacis . Archbishop's Palace, Ravenna Arena Chapel, Padua Arian Baptistery, Ravenna Ark of the Covenant, see Germigny-des-Prés Arta, church of the Paregoritissa . Autun, pavements from . Avignon, papal court removed to Aztecs. Asulejos . .

229

233 154 118-119

257 247

257 261 43

52-53 103, 104, 123 240 74 159 203 53

Babylonian Captivity Bacchus, Triumph of Bagdad . Baldovinetti, Alesso Baptistery

of the Orthodox,

Ravenna

Barberini, Cardinal Bartoli, Cosimo, painter Basilica Ursiana, Ravenna, apse Baths of Caracalla . . Baybars, mosque of, Damascus Bellni . . Bembo, chronicle of Benedict XIII, pope Benedict XIV, pope . Berlin, Excelsior Hotel, Roman bath

102, 200

A HISTORY

318

OF MOSAICS

Bernini. . Bernward, bishop, see s Hildesheim Bertaux

.

Bethlehem, church of the Nativity . Bianchini, the . . Bithynia, see Nicaea Blashfield, Edwin Blue Mosque, see Dome of the Rock Bohemia . Boni, G., quoted 4o, note 9 Borghese Gallery, see Paul V Boscoreale, villa from Boulogne-sur-Mer, mosaics from Bouquet, Louis Boville, Ernica, San Pietro Ispano, Giotto's angel Brading, pavement . Brooklyn Museum, mosaic Brosses, Charles de, quoted Burne-Jones, Sir Edward Caesar. Calendra, G. Caligula . . . Campo Santo, Pisa, frescoes . Cappella Palatina, Palermo Cappuccini, church of the, Rome . Capua, cathedral Capua, see San Prisco Casaranello, basilica Caspar, Karl . Castagno, Andrea del Catacomb mosaics . Cavaliere d'Arpino . Cavallini . Cefalü, cathedral, apse Central American mosaics Cézanne Charlemagne Charles VIII . . Chester, cathedral . Chicago, Oriental Theater Avalon Theater Chichen Itzá, plaque from Chinili Kiosk, Constantinople Chios, Nea Moni Chora, church of the, see Kahrie DjamiChoricus of Gaza Chosroes . Ciampini

Cimabue

108,

130

223 187

119 260 238

.

.

56 245, 246°

.

188, 209, 212, 213, 217, 218, 221-222, 237

179, 180 31 258

102, 14b 144, 152, 154 . . . 240 256

261 261 33

30 169,

170

54, 112 62

63, 76, 83, 102, 137, 144, 145, 150, 154, 211 .

.

.

.

201,

205,

209

INDEX

319 PAGE

Cingria, Alexandre . Cirencester, pavement Ciriacus, catacomb οὗ. . Civil War, American culture after the Civita Castellana, cathedral Clayton and Bell . Colonna, palace, moasic Colors, range of Constanti, Tarragona, mosaics Constantia Constantine. . Constantine the Rhodian Constantinople Holy Apostles, church of Fetiye Djami Kahrie Djami St. Irene St. Sophia Contarini, doge Copenhagen, mosaics Cordova, mosque Cortes Cortona, Museum, Madonna, mote. 156 Cosmas, Giovanni, mosaicist . Cosmati, the . Cotanello, stone from Crispus . Cristofari, Fabius . Cristofari, P. P. Crusades, the . Curzon, M. de Currier Gallery of Art, Manchester, N. H. . Cyprus, see Panagia Angelokistos and Panagia Kanakaria Dalton Dante . . Daphne, pavements, note I3 Daphni . dome. Feasts of the "Church narthex . . David, peinter Decóte Decree of 1648, Venice Delhi, tombs and mosques at . Delos . . Denis, Maurice . Des Moines, Iowa, State Capitol Detroit Public Library

Fisher Building

MacCabees Building

259 51 56 256 216 256 217 41 122

64 59 112, 160 111-113, 159 230 227-229 212-113 42, IIO-III,

162-163

I9I 260 132 31

188,

215

320

A HISTORY

OF

MOSAICS Pace

Diehl

89, 123, 159, 165, 228

Dielman,

Frederick

Diodato,

mosaicist

.

257

188

Dioskourides, mosaic by Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem octagonal

circular drum

.

.

.

49

42, 127-129 128 128 128

arcade

arcade

129

style

Dordoré, quoted, 259 and note I “Doves” of the Capitoline Ducas, Maria .

49 227 149, 201, 209

Duccio

Duellberg, Ewald Durande de Mende,

. tomb of, Rome

Early-Christian style defined Ecclesia ex Circumcisione Ecclesia ex Gentibus Egyptian mosaics El-Aksa, mosque, Jerusalem El-Hakim, Caliph emblema English XIX century mosaics Ephesus, Council of Erfurt,

cathedral

.

.

61 61

. .

29 175 132

.

49 255-256 74

.

255 110 260 29

Faulkner, Barry Faun, house of the . Feather mosaics Felix IV, pope Ferrara, mosaic, note 137 Fetiye Djami, Constantinople Filadelfi, mosaic of the Flavius Vopiscus Flemish miniatures . Florence

262 so 32 134

230 52 40, 50 231

mosaics

by

Opera del Duomo, mosaics in Florentine

San Miniato Baptistery

“scarsella” dome Florentine intarsia . Foro Claudio, apse Forseth, Einar . Fossati . . Fountain niches, Pompeii

217

60-62

Eski-Djouma, Salonika . . Essen, Altkatholischen Kirche Evans, Sir Arthur .

Baptistery Cathedral Ghirlandaio,

260 216,

.

201-208 205 239 176, 240 205 201-205 201, 202 202-205 31 237 260

. .

IIO

54

321

INDEX

Pace Fournier . Fourth Style, Pompeii Fra Jacopo Francescano, mosaicist France, XIX century mosaics . Francesco, mosaicist . Frankfurt am Main, Frauen-Friedenskirche . . Friedenskirche, Berlin, see San Cypriano, Murano Frosinone, see Boville Ernica Fry, Roger, quoted . . . . . . Gaddo Gaddi . Gaeta, mosaic, note 128 Galla Placidia . . Mausoleum of ' Garnier, Charles Garrucci Gaudin . . . Gaugin . . . . . Geneva, St Paul’s Genoa, San Matteo Gentile da Fabriano George, Walter . . German XIX century mosaics

. .

235 108,

130

201, 203 253-255 232 260

ἢ

36

204, 205, 220, 221

. .

. .

. .

. .

Germigny-des-Prés, apse Gerspach . Gessi, de . Ghiberti . . Ghirlandaio, David, mosaics . Ghirlandaio, mosaics quoted Giambono, Michele Giggleswick, chapel Giotto Giovanni, Cosmas, mosaicist . Glass . . Glass factories, Murano . . Gonsalvo Rodriguez, tomb of, Rome Gospels, source of iconography Goths. . . . Grand Palais, Paris Great Mosque, Damascus . . Great Panel . . . Style . . Gregory of Tours Grijalva, Juan de Grimaldi, drawings Grottaferrata, Rome . Guard's Chapel, St. James’ Park . Guilbert-Martin . . . . Hadrian’s Villa, vault

241, 254 137, 222

238, 239, 244 256 203, 222, 223 216 41 231 216, 217

61 81 . . .

. . .

255 129-132 130 131

. . .

153 31

. .

. .

. .

. .

137, 145 171, 172 256 2$9 54

322

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS Pact

Hagia Paraskeoi, see Eski-Djouma, Salonika . Hagia Paraskevi, see St. Demetrius, Salonika Hague, the, mosaic by Thorn Prikker . . Hamlin, definition of mosaic, by, note ı Haseloff . . . . . . . Heisenburg . . . . . . . Hieron II . . . . . -

Hilarius, Pope

.

.

.

.

.

.

-

.

260

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

119 159 53

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hildesheim, mosaics of Bernward . . Hobenlohe, Prince Max von . . Holy Apostles, church of, Constantinople Holy Land, mosaics of . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Holy

Redeemer,

.

-

church

of the, Detroit

Holy Sepulchre, church of . Homburg, Erlöserkirche . . Honorius I, pope. . . Honorius III, pope . . . Hosios Lucas, Phocis . . mosaics . . style . . Houses of Parliament, St. George Huesca, tombal mosaic . . Hylas and the Nympbs . . Hypogeum, Via Po . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

Iconography Early Christian . . Byzantine. . . Impressionism . . . . India . . . Indriomeni, Marco Greco, artist . Innocent I, pope. . . . . International School . International Telephone and Telegraph Isfahan, portal of the Misjid-i-Sbah Issus, battle of, from Pompeii . Istanbul, see Constantinople Irving Trust Building, New York . Jackson, T. G. . . Jacobello del Fiore . . Jacopo, mosaicist . . Jaroslav . Jean de Ganai, Président Jerash, pavements, note 13 John IV, pope . . John VII, oratory οὗ. Virgin, Florence

.

78

. . III-II2, .

233 260 159 62

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

257

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . ἢ . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . -

.

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

62,67 255 133 200 163-165 164 165 156 122 48 66

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

‘Building, New York . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. ἢ . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. ἢ . . . . . ἢ . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

$9-62 187-160 258 30 192 133 231 261 30 49

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

262

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

256 238 21$, 216 165 240

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

134 137-139 137

.

. . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

138

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

138 215 163

Fragments.

Adoration of Magi John of Malta . . . John Zimesces, emperor . .

INDEX Junius Bassus, basilica of Jurancon, pavement .

. .

. .

.

.

Kabr Hiram, pavement. . Kahrie Djami, Constantinople Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church, Khotan, frescoes, note $5 Kibel, restoration by . .

. .

.

.

Knossos, Lesser Palace at

.

5

Justinian

. .

MC portrait of

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . .

. . .

. . .

.

.

.

ΕΞ .

Berlin

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.

.

.

.

EM

. .

SL

. .

. .

. .

48 κι

νι

ς

8;

.

.

95

. . .

. . .

. .

64 227-229 255

.

.

.

89, 90

EM

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

29

Kondakoff . . . . . . . Koran . . Krakow, Crartoryski Museum, mosaic, note 133 1 Kutchuk Aya Sofia, see SS. Sergius and Bacchus

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. -

.

. .

. .

228 128

Laberii, Villa of the . Labouret . La Dourade, Tours, church La Farge, Bancel . . La Farge, John . . Lascari, Salvatore . . Lateran, the, nave. .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .

.

. .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

52 259 153 257 256, 257 262

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

84

apse

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

218-219

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

68

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

227

Leland Stanford University, California Leilo, mosaicist . . . . . Leo XII, pope . . . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

258 187, 206 245

Leopoldo dal Pozzo

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

244

. . . . . .

.

D. C. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

63, 83, 136 . 257 . sı . 130 . 206 . 129

Lateran

.

Baptistery,

Latins, the

.

323

apse

.

.

.

Liber Pontifcalis . . Library of Congress, Washington, Lillebonne, pavement. . Livia, house of, Primaporta . Lorenzetti, the . . . Lorey, Eustache de . . . Rome . Ravenna Louvre, main stair-case Lourdes, Basilica . Lucca, see San Frediano Lucifer. . . Luigi di Pace . .

0. .

. . . .

. .

.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

83, 84 102 254 254

.

.

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

203 241, 244

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

254

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

254 254 232 238

,

Lyons, Nótre-Dame de Fourviéres. Madeleine, the, Paris, apse Magne, Henri-Marcel . Maitani, Lorenzo . . Mantegna . . .

. . . .

. . . .

324

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS

Marienburg, Marien-Kirche, mosaic Marien-Kirche, see Marienburg Marienwerder . . Marseilles, New Cathedral . Martorana, church of the, Palermo Mather Mauméjean, the brothers Mausoleum of Galla Placidia building vaults . St. Lawrence Good Shepherd style Maxentius, temple of May, Maria . . Mehmet Fatih, mosque . Meiere, Hildreth Melozzo da Forli . Menology of Basil II Merson, Luc-Olivier Mesarites . Messina, cathedral, ape . . Messina Museum, see San Gregorio, Messina Metochites, Theodore . Metropolitan Life Insurance Building, Ottawa Metropolitan Museum . . Mexican mosaics . . Middle Ages, enthusiasm ‘for . Milan Sant' Ambrogio San Lorenzo . Millet . . . Miniature mosaics . Minoans Mistra, írescoes Modern architecture Moguls. . Mohammed II Mohammedan mosaics Molkenboer Monnos, pavement by Monophysites Monreale, cathedral . Monte di Giovanni di Miniato, mosaicist Monza ampullae Morgan, Charles L. Moro, Giovanni Morosini, tomb of, in ss. Giovanni e Paolo, "Venice Mosaic, definition of . color, possibilities for technique of .

240 165

254 112, 160 185-186

227, 228 262 108

31, 32 251 117-118,

200-201

159,

172, quoted,

228, 229

.

.

116-117 176 .29

227, 229 262

INDEX

325 Pact

materials of . . . . . . range of colors . . . . Mosque of Omar, see Dome of the Rock Mount Athos, mosaics . . . Mount Sinai, see Monastery of St. "Catherine. Munich, Maximilianeum . National Theatre . Munio da Zamora, tomb of, in Santa Sabina Mufioz Muqaddasi, quoted | . . . . Murano, see SS. Maria e Donato and San Cypriano Musée Cluny . . . . . . . Muziano da Brescia

National Catholic Cathedral, Washington, D. C. National Gallery, London, pavement Nativity, church of the, see Bethlehem *Navicella" by Giotto, St. Peter's . Nazarene school . Nea Moni, see Chios Nebbia, Cesare . . . . Nemi, lake of . . . . . Nennig, pavement . .

Neo-Classicism

.

. . .

. . .

. . .

.

North Italian painting . . .

Ocean liners, mosaics on . . Ohio State Building, Columbus Old St. Peter's, apse Olynthus . . . pebble mosaics Opéra, Paris Opus

musivum

Opus sectile — . Opus tessellatum Opus vermiculatum

Orcagna, Ándrea Orpheus . . Orvieto, cathedral, facade Ostia, “Sylvanus” from .

.

.

170

255 255 217

119, 120 130, 131 240 38, 245

257 261

222-223 255

Neon, Archbishop . . New Church, Constantinople . Nicaea, church of the Dormition Nicephoras Gregoras Nicephoras Phocas . Nolde, Emile . . North Prussia . . Northern Africa, pavements Northern Europe, mosaics Norwegian mosaics . . Nymphaeum, Via Tiburtina

40-44 41, 42

. .

. .

. .

326

A HISTORY

Paduan school . . Palaeologus, Andronicus, emperor Palaeologi, the . . . Palermo

. . .

Camera di Ruggro

. . .

.

OF

MOSAICS

. . .

. . .

. . -

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Pacr 238 227 227

.

-

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

38§-185

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

181-183

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

180-181

Palestrina, pavement from . . Panagia Angelokistos, Kiti, Cyprus Panagia Kanakaria, Cyprus . . Panthéon, Paris, apse. Paregoritissa, church of the, see s Arta Parenzo, basilica. . . . ciborium, note 133 Pascal I, pope . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

49 160-161 16x 254

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

114-116

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

145

Pasteur, tomb οὗ.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

15€

Paul V, portrait of . Paulus Diaconus .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

247-248 136

Pebble mosaics

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

4

Pechstein, Max

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

260

Cappella Palatina .

.

Martorana

Cathedral.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

185

30

Persian mosaic tiles

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

30

Peru, early burials in Peruzzi, Baldassare

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

32 240

.

ML

.

.

.

.

.

.

239

Pescennius Niger, mosaic of

. — .

M

Petrus, mosaicist . . Phillips, L. March, quoted, note 2

Piave, pebbles MEN Pietro da Cortona. .

©.

Pinturicchio . Pisa, Cathedral

. apse

. .

Pisanello . Pisano, Andrea Pliny s

. .

. .

Pola, see Santa

Maria

Impressionism

Poynter,

L. J.

oo. .

.

eo.

CI .

LS . . .

ΝΥ

. .

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. . .

. . E

.

. . . . D

. .

. . . . 4

.

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

del Canneto

Poli, Cappella dei Conti . . Pordenone . . . . Portative mosaics, see miniature

Post

.

. . . . mosaics

.

$3

OS ΞΕ . .

. .

. .

43 245 . .

240 205-206

. . . . PD

. .

238 232 50

.

. .

. .

. .

214 242

.

.

.

.

256

. .

255 38

. . .

. . .

233 72 257

ΞΕ

259

. . .

. .

Ca, .

Posen, Schlosskapelle Possulana .

.

.

-

.

.

en . . . .

.

.

.

IM . .

.

ZZ . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.

.

. .

Prague, cathedral, mosaic . . . Pseudo-Matthew, account of . . Presbyterian churches, Rochester, N. Y.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Prikker, Johan Thom

.

.

258

.

. . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

NC

Protevangelium of St. James . Procopius quoted . . . Provenzale da Cento . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

SZ

227 112 245,246

INDEX

327 Pace

Ptolomey Pueblos

Philopator

Quimper,

cathedral

53 32 259

Rameses II, temple of Raphael, mosaic in Santa Maria del Popolo Ravenna Archbishop's Palace Arian Baptistery Basilica Ursiana . . Galla Placidia, mausoleum Lost mosaics . . . Orthodox Baptistery . Sant’Apollinare in Classe Sant’Apollinare Nuovo . San Michele . San Vitale Renaissance, the . Reparatus, Archbishop Restorations, recent Revoil . Rheims, “Mosaic of the Promenade" Ricci, Sebastiano. . Rochester, N. Y., Savings Bank Rockefeller Center, New York . Roger, chamber of King, see Royal Palace, Palermo Roman art defined . . . . Romanos II, emperor Romanticism Rome Colonna Palace, mosaic John

VII,

oratory

97-98 101

200 87-89 102 89-91

98-101 91-95 IOI-102 95-97 237 100 251-252 254 SI 244 261 262 62 164

251

of

Lateran apse . Lateran Baptistery Old St. Peter's, apse Sant'Agata dei Goti

Sant' Agnese

29

240-241

218-2 I9;

.

217 137-139

nave,

84

oo.

Sant’ Andrea ‘Catabarbara . . San Bartolommeo all’ Isola . San Bastianello St. Calixtus . Santa Cecilia San Cesareo . . . . . San Clemente . . . San Crisógono . . . SS. Cosma e Damiano . Santa Costanza. Santa Croce in Gerusalemme Santa Francesca Romana. St. John the Evangelist, oratory . San Lorenzo-f-l-m . San Marco . . . . Santa Maria in Araceli Santa Maria in Cosmedin Santa Maria in Domnica Santa Maria di Loreto. . Santa Maria del Popolo, Raphael ^ MAGGIORE ; {τε

.

. . . 240-241 211-212 8 5; 151-152

. . .

217, 218

216 149-150 246

r

22

:

240-241

328

A HISTORY

OF MOSAICS Pıoz

Santa Maria Scala (αἰ.

Rossi, Rossi, Royal Russia, Rusuti

Santa Maria in Travestere . SS. Nereo de Achille San Paolo-f-1-m. St. Peter's . San Pietro in Vinculi Santa Prasede . Santa Pudenziana . Santa Sabina . . Santo Stefano Rotondo Santa Suzanna. . . . San Teodoro . . . . San Tommaso in Formis . St. Venantius, oratory . Triclinium of Leo III . . Vatican Library, Apostles’ Heads Vatican Studio . . . G.-B. de, quoted . Girolamo, historian . Palace, Palermo, chamber oí King Roger XIX century mosaics . . .

Sacré-Coeur, Paris . Sant! Agata, Ravenna Sant’ Agata dei Goti, Rome Sant’ Agnese, Rome . Sant’ Ambrogio, Milan, chapel of st. Victor

apee

.

.

Sant’ Andrea Catabarbara, Rome . Sant’ Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna

apse

.

.

246

anat . ᾿γγ-18, 213, 214, .

221-222 145 214-215 245-247 136-137

145-149, 216 .

| 66-6

245, 252-253

84 133-134 117-118

200-201 84 98-101

Reparstus . Abrabam and Melchisedec Sant? Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna

Life of Christ

Prophets Processions of saints Portrait of Justinian St. Bartholomew's, New York San Bartolommeo all’ Isola, Rome San Bastianello, Rome, apse . St. Calixtus, lost mosaics St. Catherine, monastery of Santa Cecilia, Rome, apse San Cesareo, Rome San Clemente, Rome SS. Cosma e Damiano, Rome .

apse

arch Costanza, Rome . dome ring-vault apes . San Crisógono, Rome, mosaic Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, Rome Santa

113 246

INDEX

329 Pact

San Cypriano, Murano . St. David, Salonika . St. Demetrius, Salonika . St. Denis, lateral portal St. Eusebius, crypt of St. Felix, Nola, basilica . Santa Francesca Romana, Rome San Frediano, Lucca . St. John the Evangelist, oratory of, Rome St. George, Salonika San Giovanni in Fonte, see Baptistery of Soter San Gregorio, Messina. St. Irene, Constantinople St. Isaac, cathedral of, Leningrad. . San Lorengo, Milan, chapel of St. Aquilinus . San Lorenzo-fuori-le-mura, Rome . St. Louis, cathedral San Marco, Rome, apse. . Santa Maria dell' Ammiraglio, see Martorana Santa Maria in Araceli, Rome, tomb in lateral portal . Santa Maria del Canneto, Pola . . Santa Maria in Cosmedin, Rome, baldachino Santa Maria in Domnica, Rome, apse SS. Maria e Donato, Murano . Santa Maria di Loreto, Rome Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome nave mosaics . . triumphal arch date . technique

199 IIO 109, 110 233 156 121 211-212 205 78 107-108

186 112, 113 253 116-117

82-83 ° 257 I51-I52 217 218

116 216

149-150 199

apse

facade restoration Santa Maria Maggiore, Ravenna Santa Maria Nuovo, see Santa Francesca Romana St. Mary Pammakaristos, see Fetiye Djami Santa Maria del Popolo, Chigi Chapel . Santa Maria Scala Celi, Rome Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome, apse . facade . . . Cavallini St. Mark's, Venice . . general scheme early

240-241 246

212-213 213 221-222 191-196 192 192 193

work

central cupola west dome east dome . life of Christ . narthex . Cappella Zeno facade . e. Baptistery . .

193

193 194 194, 195

. .

. .

. .

. .

195, 196

196 230-231

MOSAICS

OF

A HISTORY

330

PAGE Cappella

di Sant’

Isidoro

Chapel of the Mascoli .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

231

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

238

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. :

. .

. .

243 244

Giovanni Moro. Salandri . . Società Salviati .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

251 252 252

. . D. C. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . -

. . . -

. . . .

153 257 206 167

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

101-102

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

205 145 77-78 77-78 314-215 121 258 248, 256 245-24] 213-214

Martin, Tours, church Matthew’s, Washington, Matteo, Genoa . Michael, Kiev . .

San

Michele in Affricisco,

Ravenna

San Miniato, Florence . . . . . SS. Nereo ed Achille, Rome, arch . . . . . San Paolo-fuori-le-mura . . . . . triumphal arch . . . . . . apse . . . . . . . St. Paulinus, description by . . . . . . St. Paul, Minn, State Capitol . . . . . St. Paul’s, London . . . . . . . . St. Peter's, Rome, mosaics. . . . . . crypt, mosaic in . . San Pietro Chrysologo, see Archbishop's Palace, Ravenna San Pietro Ispano, see Boville Ernica .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

136

Santa Prassede, Rome . . . . . . triumphal arch. . . . . apsidal arch . . . . . . apse . . . . . . . chapel of San Zeno. . . . Madonna and Child . . . San Prisco, Capua, chapel oí Santa Matrona "EM Santa Pudenziana, Rome . . . . . Santa Restituta, Naples . . . . . . Santa Sabina, Rome . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

146-149 146 146,147 147 147-149 216 121-122 66-67 187,188 76

St.

Pietro

.

Apocalypse vault . Leopoldo dal Pozzo

St. St. San St.

San

.

in Vinculi,

Sergius,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

112

SS. Sergius and Bacchus, Constantinople San Silvestro, Tivoli, ape . . .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

112 237

St.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.

42, 110-111 . IIO-III . 162

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

162,163

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. -

166 139-140

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

169

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . ἢ

135-136 112 144

Sophia,

Gaza

Rome

Constantinople . narthex lunette of Leo VI. lunette

over

St. Sophia, Kiev. St. Sophia, Salonika Ascension

South

. .

Portal

. .

in dome

Santo Stefano Rotondo, Rome St. Stephen, Gaza . . . Santa Susanna, Rome, apse . San

Rome

.

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

134

San Tommaso

in Formis, Rome

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

215

St. Venantius,

oratory,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

134-135

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

95-97

San

Teodoro,

. .

Vitale, Ravenna

apse

Rome

.

P

.

ΞΞΘΒΞΕΞΞΞΞΕΕ

95

INDEX

arch vault wals . panels of J ustinian 'and Theodora Salandri, Liborio Salerno, cathedral facade apses

.

. .

Salonika Eski-Djouma St. David. St. Demetrius St. George St. Sophia Salzenburg . Samarkand, mosque of Chah-Sindeh at. Sancta Sanctorum, Rome, chapel . Sanctuaire de Sainte-Thérése de l'Enfant Jesus, Paris Sandhurst, Military College Sansovino, Jacopo . . Sassanian winged motif . S. S. "Bremen", mosaic . S. S. "Kungsholm", mosaic Scheffler, Rudolph . Schevenigen, Holland, St. Antonius Selvo, Domenico, doge .

107-108

139-140, 169 110 30 216 259 261

242 128

260 257, 261

260 191 40, 50

Serbia, Cathedral of Topola Seres, Metropolitan Sicily, general . . Siena, cathedral, facade Sisinius, legend οὗ. Skovgaard, Joakim . Smirnoff . Società Salviati .

Solsternus,

mosaicist

.

260-261

170 179 232 210 260

.

Sosus of Pergamon, pavement by . Soter, Baptistery of, Naples . . South Kensington Museum, studio . mosaic by Orcagna Spartian, Historia Augusta Spoleto, cathedral, facade Stefaneschi, cardinal Stevens, Alfred . Stockholm, Town Hall . Strzygowski Suger, the abbot Sumerian mosaics . reliefs

"Sylvanus" of Ostia Sylvester I, pope

161 252 215 so 119-120 256 233 53 218 223 256

260 27 233 27-29 29 55-56 133

332

A HISTORY OF MOSAICS

Symonds, J. A., quoted . . Syracuse, Museum, mosaic, note Syro-Palestinian school, note 85

. 125

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Pack 36

Tabarka, Morocco . . . Tafi, Andrea, mosaicist . . Tankiz, mausoleum of, Damascus Tarragona, tombal mosaics .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .

$1,122 203 132 122

Tate

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

261

.

.

Teano, tombal mosaic, note 83 Tel-el-Yehudia, capitals, at .

Gallery, pavement

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

29

Temple

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

258

Teutonic Order . . . . Theodoric . . . . . Théodulfe, abbot . . Tigress and Bull, from the Capitol Tikkanen . Timgad, “Mosaique de la Piscine" . Tintoretto . . . . . Titian. . . . . . Toesa . . . . . . Tombal mosaics. . . . Topola, see Serbia Torcello, cathedral . . . . vault . . . . apes . . . . Last Judgment. . Torriti . . . . . . Traini, Francesco . . . . Trecento . . . . . Trecento, painting . . . . Trial of 1573 . . . Triclinium of Leo III, Rome . . . Trieste, Cathedral . . Cappella del Sacramento Cappella di San Giusto . Trier, pavement . Trinity College Chapel, Washington, D. Tuscan painters, early . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . ἢ . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . ἢ . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . 209, . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . 196-199 . . . 196-197 . . . 197 . . . 197-199 218, 219, 220, 221, 237 . . . 206 . . . 149 . . . 229 . . . 243 . . . 144 . . . 199-200 . . . 199 . . . 199-200 . . . $1 . . . 257 . . . 204

Ugonio . . Union Terminal Station, Cincinnati Ur, Standard of . . . . Urban VIII, pope . . .

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .

. . . .

. . .

65 262 29 247

Ursiana,

Basilica,

see

Ravenna

.

Uthina,

pavement

.

$1

Emmanuel,

.

New

.

York

Basilica

Valencia, tombal mosaic Van Berchem, Marg. Van Gogh . . Vanni, Cecco, mosaicist Vasari . . .

Usiana,

c. .

. . 234 . . 8 . . 152 . . 48 . . 195 . . $1 . . 242 . » 242,243 117, 118, 194, 204 . . 122

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.

. . . .

122 40, 42, 131 . 258 . 232 203, 204, 205, 220, 239, “quoted 240, 241

INDEX

Vassalletti, the Vatican Library, Apostles’ heads Vatican Studio Vatopedi, Catholicon Crucifixion Vedder, Elihu . Venturi . Veramin, mosque at Veronese, Paolo Venice, general . Santa Maria della ‘Salute, mosaic, note 133. Vienna, Church of the Minorites, Leonardo's Last Supper Vigeland, Emanuel . . . . . Vladimir, Prince of Kiev Vogüé, de

Walid I, Caliph

.

Warka, Ziggurat tower courtyard Warriors, temple of the Wartburg, the . Watts. . Westminster Cathedral, Whittemore, Thomas Wiley, F. J. Wilpert Woodchester, pavement Woolley Wren, Sir Christopher Xenophon,

.

.

.

.

.

.

P4oz 188 .

144

245, 252-253 171

176

257 133, 136, 145, 185, 213 .

.

.

30 242

I9I 253 260 165

175 129

at

27

.

28 32

London

355 256 261 40, 42, 111, 162 258

. .

Catholicon

Zancarron, capilla del, see Cordova, mosque Zisa, the, Palermo . . . . . . Zliten, pavements Zuccati, the Zuccato, Francesco .

117, 119, 134 51 28, 29

248, 256 171

184

53 242, 243 242

ROMAN WC

A

φρο

τα

ng | Soc

PLATE

aim

"a

A

>ER

1

va;

n. 3 ἢ fe

E de. e CUN

ER

N lu

Mo.

T

m ^ad

ME

F

ἜΤΟΣ -

E

-

=

ΓΜ

i T

n

*

^e.

Al

tee

ux

er.

T >

FrLag

PAVEMENT

I.

NAPLES

MUSEUM.

ACADEMY

OF

PLATO

FROM

TORRE

ANNUZIATA

PLATE

II

Phe]

PAVEMENTS

PUMA D.

ER,

ORT

i

*

ΙΕ

ROMAN

S

LISELI A

311

SPAN

ey

e

P b

t

il a:

1

u

m

2. 4.

MUSEO DELLE TERME. HEAD OF MEDUSA PAVEMENT FROM THE BATHS OF CARACALLA

3. 5.

POMPEI. RECLINING DOG CAPITOL MUSEUM. “PLINY’S DOVES”

TIMGAD.

7.

ZLITEN

MOSAIQUE

DE

LA PISCINE

(TRIPOLI).

DETAIL

OF PAVEMENT

PLATE

POMPEII—OSTIA

III

ee

€

d iJ aries

3 F

lego

a

TL". Tin IDEM.

L^

r

curae 3o Ars, lest "1 -E Ἢ

8. IO.

POMPEII. NAPLES

FOUNTAIN MUSEUM.

9.

NICHE MOSAIC

COLUMN

11.

NAPLES MUSEUM. LATERAN

MUSEUM.

FOUNTAIN

NICHE

"SILVANUS"

FROM

OSTIA

SANTA

I2. 13.

GENERAL

VIEW

OF

THE

CIAMPINI'S VAULT

COSTANZA

ENGRAVING

OF

PLATE

THE

DOME

I4.

DETAIL

OF

THE

15.

DETAIL

OF

THE

VAULT. VAULT.

DECORATIVE VINTAGE

IV

PATTERN

SCENE

ROME—FIFTH

oe.

“νι

ΓΙ

a

bai

CENTURY

PLATE

=— ER

{-xD f.

=

d

; CA PAS

>

cf

—

~ 2 Se -

16. 18.

SANTA SANTA

COSTANZA. LEFT APSE PUDENZIANA. APSE 20. SANTA MARIA MAGGIORE.

#

17. 19. GENERAL

SANTA COSTANZA. RIGHT APSE LATERAN BAPTISTERY. APSE VIEW OF THE NAVE

V

MARIA

MAGGIORE

PLATE

VI

b.

T e?

T LI

m

ἊΝ

an

»

-

A LES

NIC Lori

SANTA

LL. ‘ 4 ora

ἢ |

1

21.

SANTA

MARIA

MAGGIORE.

SEPARATION

ABRAHAM

OF

AND

ABRAHAM

THE

AND

THREE

LOT

ANGELS

23.

MARRIAGE

OF

MOSES

AND

SEPHORA

SANTA T Y XS SO SÉ d aYZiv- RN ;

^w.

MAGGIORE a f

:

PLATE

uos LE rote

"i NE.

"s M j 1377

τὰ

d

r

Ai

vey VN

à

πὰτῆνἘΝ4 es

Ur M jspr τι

N

"ὦ

2

ΤῺ

1

1

ΒΟ,

b

m

Mn

57

DE anT8

]

ay

jjPERL

n pit "oru 13 fini,

T

ps KR

M

i» am | Dx

2

"

4

uc

[|

:

ΚΦ ΤΩ ἢ

>

AM

»

^a

3

I A

25.

DETAIL

OF

24.

GENERAL

THE

ARCH 27.

er

eiat

nest ^

VIEW

OF

THE

—€—

up a:

A inm EN

wv

TRIUMPHAL 26.

DETAIL

OF

THE

VII

EN

TT. —

m

pee

DA

MARIA

VEX

nome

Sand

ARCH DETAIL

PRESENTATION

OF

THE

ARCH

3

ne

^

ἐν LOT. P

SABINA—SAN

PAOLO

PLATE

VIII

1:3 dedu

Br — 1c

SANTA

y

JESUM

ΠῚ

Se.

es = Ἢ lee ze i ^ eX OY 505 ec os

29.

^

dta

ΤῸ

ee

6)

ΤΟΙ

Ty

m

28. SANTA SABINA. GENERAL VIEW OF MOSAIC 30. SANTA SABINA. DESTROYED MOSAIC OF THE ARCH FROM CIAMPINI SANTA SABINA. ECCLESIA EX CIRCUMCISIONE 31. SAN PAOLO FUORI-LE-MURA, TRIUMPHAL ARCH

APSE

AND

SS. COSMA

E DAMIANO

PLATE "uod

pai

a

,

pu

ee

cM:

MT

e

pee by

Mc

^p

Mad hs

d >

OAM

E

TTE CIIIT MET — 33.

APSE

AND

32.

LATERAN

TRIUMPHAL

ARCH 34. CHRIST, DETAIL 35. RIGHT HALF OF THE APSE BAPTISTERY. VAULT 36. LEFT HALF OF THE 37. SAN LORENZO FUORI-LE-MURA. ARCH

APSE

IX

PLACIDIA

PLATE

X

NS.

GALLA

4 | wt

W^

ES

,

I

E]

E en catt gr

aan

PERF,

w.

3 pegecerereCOPUUUCDTETYSEYUUTTYTTT. PIE

38. Al.

39. GENERAL VIEW EXTERIOR OF MAUSOLEUM MARTYRDOM OF ST. LAWRENCE

OF THE

MOSAICS OF THE

yel

σον ἢ CUALNM EEE

a

VAULTS 40. STAGS DRINKING 42. THE GOOD SHEPHERD

Al

BAPTISTERY

44.

OF THE

43. DOME, BAPTISM OF CHRIST. BAPTISM OF CHRIST

ORTHODOX

THE APOSTLES,

THRONES AND ALTARS 45. THE INTERIOR

PLATE

XI

SANT'APOLLINARE

NUOVO

PLATE

7:72

PII E

Ἂς

—

LITE

σας.

46. 47 48.

RIGHT

WALL

DETAIL

OF

OF

LEFT

NAVE WALL

LEFT

WALL

OF

NAVE

49.

DETAIL

OF RIGHT

WALL

XII

c >

> =) Zz μὴ

F

|

i LI A

τ imac

254,9

"SL.

ὡ

u

1

.

2

_”

k

ἃ i

i

"I

τὰς u

Shen

=

.

wet: -

t

-—

2. er

Ivi

T [EU DIE Ze

e

*

E

Ἕ

the —

rhet

4

.

τ

heri

Mos

res

᾿

;

e

EDER

X

u

ν᾿ Mc

-

dV

"CS

RE

5

i

πὸ Bd

"

4

atm

sa.

PC

Mai

4

"T

ah

ler?

du.

IM.

à

"uu em:

nn

los

OF

N

50. 5I.

= 4

«un

OW

M

à

BREAD

THE ;

OF

SEPARAT A

MULTIPLICATION

eh

,

,

TT

THE

THE LL TPTT

Ζ

u

eS

-

Ἢ

ἣ

λει

GOATS

THE

FROM

SHEEP

XIII PLATE

jd

a

X

virum,

w DE

Nee

ran

“τε e an

4be

"Ἐς lee

er

x

VA

52. a be

δι ἐν

DR TEN:

A

ved

par ararer pment arEN.

(ea abc

LI

Ein

ck

NEG» Nisi

*

ums

EDS

matt

"

SANT'APOLLINARE

THE

LAST

SUPPER

NUOVO

5

PLATE

ce " Ne

‘3

53. d -

ni d ῷ

=

THE

KISS

OF

JUDAS

XIV

SANT'APOLLINARE

adv

d

Am

"di

FETT FE

FE

a

"EDU

Fr

:

Ee

eee

u"

bay

-

Pet

Te

pa

TAR E

um

ı

-

rz

—

5

#2

UE

tup

m

ps

Δ.

—

J

-—

"om

-

=

as

ee

Tre

σαὶ

Pa

Β

E

τσ

ἐὺ

ie,

——

"t ut

" , δὲ

eex

oe”

sU,

P

“be

UPo>

M

..

su = nn

eh

a a

54.

VIRGIN

ENTHRONED

55.

CHRIST

με

m

ia

"edi nna

“a

eee

_

TX

TE

»“-“΄΄----αἰἴ -- “σύ

UU HET]o^

j

PLATE

ree

"TL

i

ame

[

NUOVO

ENTHRONED

»--

rn

nn

XV

SAN

VITALE

*

56. 59.

PLATE

XVI

az

SANT'APOLLINARE NUOVO. PORTRAIT OF JUS(7 SAN VITALE. CHRIST 5 TINIAN SAN VITALE. VAULT SAN VITALE. ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK WITH THEIR SYMBOLS

ENTHRONED

ef

SAN

VITALE

PLATE

XVII

L

eu ne

>

=

ΠΥ

a

@ i: ἃ

Au.

Er

61. 63)

60. ABEL ABRAHAM AND THE THREE ANGELS JUSTINIAN AND HIS COURT

AND

f

e

MELCHISEDEK, MOSES AND 62. SOFFIT OF THE MEDALLIONS

Asse: i

= ἢ

een

aed

Di

r4

F

ISAIAH ARCH.

DETAIL,

SAINTS

AND

SAN

VITALE

PLATE

XVIII

-NITE,

"A

A3

Mrz

"

Wu

P

dmi

-

ἼΔΛΟΤΙ

a

»

td

7

P

πε

1

DL

LJ

Hi

at

>;

LET

fe

B

LIT

τὰς al

IIR

[T»: a

P L]

ἂν

ve

σ᾿

NC ^Pd Aun 3= ae

*"

THEODORA

AND

HER

COURT

%

Φ

^ TIL

5900o^ ^Y IIT 675805985054

*

"$0562 ote: ἃ» OC Pd

3

«f

D^

(3.

THE

EMPRESS

THEODORA

AND

ATTENDANTS

ARCHIEPISCOPAL

PALACE

L5

—-ω

66.

VAULT

67.

INTERIOR

68.

VAULT

AND

APSE

T

á

PLATE

PTe 4s

69.

BUSTS

70.

MILITANT

OF

Ld: aw»

>

oe

FEMALE CHRIST

SAINTS

XIX

SANT'APOLLINARE

71.

APSE

AND

TRIUMPHAL

ARCH.

IN

THE

CLASSE

TRANSFIGURATION

PLATE

XX

SANT'APOLLINARE un

ee ee E

CONSTANTINE ST. URSUS

IV

he

a

AND

A

2

u

REPARATUS

IN

CLASSE

PLATE

—

. .

SACRIFICE OF MELCHISEDEK THE ARIAN BAPTISTERY. CUPOLA SAN MICHELE IN AFFRICISCO. APSE

XXI

SALONIKA

PLATE

XXII

"gd

[I ) Ὑ v

a

78. 77.

ST.

GEORGE.

ST.

DECORATION 79.

ST.

GEORGE. OF

THE

LEO

AND

THE

FLUTE-PLAYER

DOME

DEMETRIUS.

ST.

DEMETRIUS

80.

ST.

AND

TWO

PHILIMON DEMETRIUS CHILDREN

AND

THE

FOUNDERS

SALONIKA

ee M

T

—CONSTANTINOPLE

PLATE

1.4 I

oid

Pu " Dome

" zu „u

qu.

m

SI.

ST.

DAVID.

E 2.

Ὁ „eh

VISION

OF

EZECHIEL

82.

ST.

SOPHIA.

NARTHEX.

VAULT

XXIII

CONSTANTINOPLE—SINAI— PARENZO

83. 84.

MONASTERY

ST.

SOPHIA.

OF

85.

ST.

NARTHEX.

CATHERINE.

PARENZO,

CROSS DETAIL

FAGADE

OF

THE

APSE

PLATE

XXIV

PARENZO

PLATE

XXV

nem ut

ela

| "ἡ

86.

APSE

AND

TRIUMPHAL

ARCH.

MADONNA

AND

CHILD

ENTHRONED

WITH

ANGELS,

SAINTS

AND

DONORS

PARENZO

PLATE

XXVI

IOCFVITINPRIMIS TEMPLVM QV IP ST T ERVINA TERR >

ín

cy

93

à

»

5)

/

os μὲ

ὩΣ | OP da ‘wa

E

87. 88.

ANNUNCIATION

DETAIL

OF

THE

Ls

hh

APSE 89.

VISITATION

M ü

Mo Em mm τ

|

Pp" “||;udi Se T3

Bli

MILAN —ALBENGA—CASARANELLO

PLATE

XXVII

AJAEKOSIVS

go.

SAN

LORENZO.

CHRIST

9I.

SAN

LORENZO.

APSE

92.

SANT'AMBROGIO.

CHAPEL

AND

THE

APOSTLES 03.

OF

ST.

VICTOR.

95.

SANT'AMBROGIO. CUPOLA.

CASARANELLO.

CHAPEL 94.

OF

ST.

ALBENGA.

CUPOLA

VICTOR.

ST.

AMBROSE

BAPTISTERY.

DETAIL

PLATE

NAPLES—TARRAGONA

96.

SAN

GIOVANNI

Q9.

CAPUA.

SAN

IN

FONTE.

PRISCO.

CHRIST

VAULT

AND

ANGEL

97.

SAN

98.

CAPUA.

100.

GIOVANNI SAN

TARRAGONA.

IN

FONTE.

XXVIII

THE

PRISCO.

CHRIST

TOMBAL

MOSAIC

LION

"DOME

OF

THE

ROCK"

PLATE

€

eee

nonien,

dere iie,

*

eria

P

-

" NEL *

a

yd.y

-— v

ka

--.

I OI.

103

THE

*

*

va

P4 twp 4X: t

DRUM.

DETAIL

OCTAGONAL

ARCADE.

DETAIL 102.

CIRCULAR

ARCADE.

DETAIL

XXIX

DAMASCUS—CORDOVA

PLATE

XXX

THE

THE FOUR

G REAT TREES

MOSQUE.

THE 106.

GREAT

3-4wi ;

MOSQUE.

#

GREAT

»

THE

on

WETwy

" i ee dizi e) 7.

Re era

104. 105.

! wee)

1 —

We πο

ΣΝ

PANEL

CORDOVA,

MOSQUE.

FACADE

OF

THE

MIHRAB

ROME-SEVENTH

CENTURY

PLATE

XXXI

|

" : u;

SANT'AGNESE.

APSE 109.

110

ORATORY

OF

ST.

108. ORATORY

VENANTIUS.

OF

GROUP

ST. OF

VENANTIUS. SAINTS

III.

SAN TEODORO. APSE

AND

ORATORY

APSE

TRIUMPHAL OF

ST.

——————— L . e #7

'

107.

ÉL | a2 *

! m " L

ARCH

VENANTIUS,

GROUP

OF

SAINTS

ROME—SEVENTH

CENTURY

PLATE

XXXII

M

rnm

oy

owe

N

I12.

SANTO

112.

SAN

STEFANO

PIETRO

IN

ROTON DO VINCOLI.

APSE ST

SEBASTIAN

114.

ORATORY

I15.

FLORENCE.

OF

JOHN SAN

VII.

FACADE

FROM

MARCO.

VIRG I N

AS

CIA MPINI

ORANT

ROME—SEVENTH

116.

MUSEO

118.

LATERAN MUSEUM. INFANT CHRIST

PETRIANO.

PORTRAIT THE

OF

JOHN

WASHING

OF

VII THE

CENTURY

117.

MUSEO

IIQ.

SANTA THE

PLATE

PETRIANO. MARIA MAGI

IN

ST.

PETER

COSMEDIN.

XXXIII

PREACHING ADORATION

OF

ROME—SALONIKA

120.

SALONIKA.

ST.

121.

ROME.

SOPHIA.

VIRGIN

TRICLINIUM IN

THE

APSE

OF

THE I22.

LATERAN. ROME.

PLATE

XXXIV

APSE VATICAN

CRYPT.

CHRIST

BLESSING

CENTURY

PLATE

XXXV

Pata, 2e.

7

Ἢ

E

ROME—NINTH

d

NM

123.

SS. NEREO

125.

SANTA

ED

ACHILLE.

PRASSEDE. 124.

THE

TRIUMPHAL HEAVENLY

SANTA

DT

ARCH

JERUSALEM

PRASSEDE.

A]

Iu

THE

APSE

126. AND

SANTA THE

PRASSEDE. TRIUMPHAL

THE ARCH

TWENTY-FOUR

ELDERS

ROME-—NINTH

PLATE

CENTURY

XXXVI

Ad Moin.

Lv Lo rV TE

“ἰ

TRETEN

r

u

128

SA

NTA

127. SANTA PRASSEDE

PRASSEDE.

VAULT

FACADE

OF

THE

129

CAPPELLA

SANTA

SAN

PRASSEDE.

ZENO

FEMALE

SAI NTS

NINTH

CENTURY

ὴ

PLATE

+4,

AQ

130. 131. I33.

SANTA CECILIA. APSE GERMIGNY-DES-PRÉS.

APSE

SANTA

XXXVII

yn’?

X ".

MARIA IN DOMINICA. APSE 132. SAN MARCO. - APSE 134. AIX-LA-CHAPELLE. DECORATION

OF THE DOME

SAINT

SOPHIA

PLATE

I35.

NARTHEX.

LUNETTE

OVER

THE

ROYAL

DOOR

136.

NARTHEX.

LUNETTE

OVER

THE

SOUTH

PORTAL

XXXVIII

0


E


ar;

SS. MARIA E DONATO. APSE CAPPELLA DI SAN GIUSTO. APSE

LIX

MÀ BRETT un

x

210. 211. 213.

TRIESTE. CAPPELLA TRIESTE. CAPPELLA RAVENNA, PALACE.

=ru

5

——

-

,

pr oo

DEL SACRAMENTO. DEL SACRAMENTO. VIRGIN AS ORANT

APSE DETAIL

RAVENNA-— MILAN —FLORENCE

214. 217.

RAVENNA.

PALACE. HEAD OF ST. JOHN 216. FLORENCE. BAPTISTERY. BAPTISTERY. MADONNA AND CHILD, DETAIL

PLATE

215. MILAN. SANT'AMBROGIO. APSE VAULT OF THE “SCARSELLA” 218. BAPTISTERY. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST

LX

THE

FLORENTINE

219.

GENERAL

VIEW

BAPTISTERY

OF

THE

DOME

PLATE

LXI

THE

CHRIST

FLORENTINE

ENTHRONED

BIRTH

BAPTISTERY

PLATE

220. DECORATION BELOW THE 222. DETAIL OF THE "HELL" OF ST. JOHN

LANTERN

LXII

FLORENCE

AἪ 4

‘

PLATE

LXIII

E

' DA

bu

"m

oe pi)

NE LU]

H

L3

ha

ἣ “

*

-

224.

228.

BAPTISTERY.

SAN

MINIATO.

DETAIL

OF

FAGADE

HEAD

225. 3

BAPTISTERY.

226.

CATHEDRAL,

227.

SAN

MINIATO.

THE

PROPHET

LUNETTE. APSE

JOEL J CORONATION

OF

THE

VIRGIN

LUCCA— PISA

PLATE

ni

*

» E

PELA

1 m

10 229.

LUCCA.

230.

PISA.

SAN

FREDIANO.

CATHEDRAL.

APSE

ASCENSION

LXIV

MEDLEVAL em E

232. 234. 236.

SAN CLEMENTE. APSE, DETAIL SANTA MARIA IN TRASTEVERE. SANTA MARIA IN TRASTEVERE. THE FACADE

ROMAN

QUT

APSE DETAIL

^.

OF

OC

231. 233. 235.

MOSAICS TRE

7:

PLATE

LXV

Ear”.

SAN CLEMENTE, APSE AND TRIUMPHAL ARCH SANTA FRANCESCA ROMANA. APSE SANTA MARIA IN TRASTEVERE, JEREMIAH AND ISAIAH

MEDL/EVAL ^

==

ROMAN

AM

E.

— nl.

WTS

ST.

238.

POLI.

PETER'S.

PLATE

LXVI

i

SAIS

237.

MOSAICS

P.

ws

FRESCO OF THE OLD APSE 239. SAN PAOLO FUORE-LE-MURA. 240. SAN PAOLO FUORE-LE-MURA. HEAD OF APOSTLE CAPPELLA CONTI. INNOCENT III. 241. SAN TOMMASO IN FORMIS. 242. CIVITA CASTELLANA. LUNETTE

APSE CHRIST

AND

TWO

SLAVES

MEDIAZVAL

243.

SANCTA

245.

STA.

SANCTORUM,

MARIA

SOPRA

ROMAN

MOSAICS

PLATE

LXVII

VAULT MINERVA,

TOMB

OF

246.

MARIA

MAGGIORE.

STA.

DURANDE

244. TOMB

OF

SANTA RODRIGUEZ

PRASSEDE.

VIRGIN

AND

CHII.D

MEDLEVAL

ROMAN

PLATE

MOSAICS

LXVIII

"nu TIT

BAT

i ^

purs)

a.

Rs

Ar:

71

247. 249.

BROOKLYN SAN

MUSEUM.

CRISÓGONO.

MADONNA

MADONNA

AND

CHILD

248.

STA.

SABINA.

250.

STA.

MARIA

251.

THE

LATERAN.

TOMBSTONE

IN

ARAC(ELI. APSE

OF

ZAMORA

LUNETTE

MEDLEVAL

ROMAN

TE

τῆς A ;

252. 254.

M

4

: *g

3

MOSAICS

PLATE

LXIX

p

; s

Η

STA. MARIA MAGGIORE. APSE STA. MARIA MAGGIORE. DORMITION 255. STA. MARIA MAGGIORE.

; ἷ

253. STA. MARIA MAGGIORE. FAGADE, CHRIST ENTHRONED

APSE.

DETAIL

MEDLEVAL

ROMAN

MOSAICS

PLATE

LXX

Li

#

cma STA.

MARIA

MAGGIORE.

"

en

a

a

DREAM

OF

.

7]

ali

Ψ

EP © uii. "..J4"

ET

1

POPE

r

237.

LIBERIUS

STA. THE

258.

AVFER vee PV E GEIS

OUTIL E fi.

256.

--ΡΟ

1

p.

1

ἐπ DVG

συ

r ö

=

ΡΟ

= E

E

ur

4

I fe

AO MU | mn 2. -

STA.

MARIA

IN

TRASTEVERE.

MARIA VIRGIN

NATIVITY

IN

TRASTEVERE.

BIRTH

OF

MEDLEVAL

ROMAN

MOSAICS

PLATE

LXXI ca

2 π΄

u. "p.

LE"

ν αν REGINA ThROPVR DEFaRT VR! GITE

e

,

CLR

ΕΠ

E sung

X

Pym: "POP T.

rer

jm |**

ee

Kor *

Ψ UR ^

cnra CN EMENENESEMR ES ERE SESES ELEM AE MENENESES Ni NeNanannnnnannAhAANNANoARAnANARANAAARNAARAAANANAS 1 Ini TUBE TERM

onngnnonaonenon

-

ur

259.

STA.

ua

"WWW*YTYTYTEYTYTYTYYYYTTEYTUVYYYYYY

MARIA

IN

TRASTEVERE.

DORMITION

260.

ST. PETER's.

261.

THE

“NAVICELLA”

BOVILLE

ERNICA.

ANGEL

THE

qoS he NARsNor Bight N E in s

ἃ

of

262.

CUPOLA,

265.

THE

"

MAGI

le

"

rM

CHRIST BEFORE

,

^

CER.

AND

KAHRIE

DJAMI

PLATE

LXXII

Ki YAo ΩΝ

=

ΠΥ

PROPHETS

ay

5

263.

THEODORE

264.

CHRIST DORMITION

HEROD

METOCHITES

AT THE

FEET OF

KAHRIE

DJAMI—FETIYE

DJAMI

PLATE "PT

eee 4"

LXXIII |

i .

NLNS.

sie 266.

as,

KAHRIE 267.

>» |

"X ees

'

DJAMI. KAHRIE

ANNUNCIATION DJAMI.

THE

HIGH-PRIEST

268. GIVES

CUPOLA THE

WOOL

OF TO

THE THE

FETIYE VIRGIN

DJAMI

) -

a M M yia

DJAMI—ST.

MARK’S—MARIENBURG

PLATE

LXXIV

4

=

CI

=

OM

τ

m

»

iec

~~

EZ

ΣΕ. m

:

ΒΞ I

"

NU

"

a

Yay’

75

FETIYE

Ξ

270. 271.

260. FETIYE DJAMI, DETAIL OF CHRIST ST. MARK'S, BAPTISTERY. CHRIST, ANGELS AND SERAPHIM ST. MARK'S, BAPTISTERY. HEROD'S FEAST 272. MARIENBURG.

VIRGIN AND CHILD

THE

ITALIAN

RENAISSANCE

CEEMEIWER E

m

273. 275. 3. 276.

FIORENCE.

OPERA.

ST.

eel

^

pt

OLI

MARK'S, CHAPEL OF THE MASCOLI. BIRTH OF THE VIRGIN AND PRESENON ra — . FLORENCE. CATHEDRAL. ANNUNCIATION DEL

;

LXXV

3. Y s

ST.

MUSEO

PLATE

ZENOBIUS

274.

ST.

MARK'S, CHAPEL DORMITION

277.

ROME. VE STA.

CROCE

OF IN

THE

MASCOLI,

GERUSALEMME,

ΌΤΑΝ

THE

ITALIAN

RENAISSANCE

PLATE n

LXXVI

IGNIS M15

Bn *

PVE

Ni) SENAT

D

e

^8

278. 279.

ROME. STA. MARIA DEL POPOLO. CUPOLA ST. MARK’S. DETAIL OF THE PARADISE 280. ST. MARK’S. MOSAIC

BY

281. ST. PETER’S. DETAIL OF THE DOME LEOPOLDO DAL POZZO

N

N

; bis

ROME — AMERICA

PLATE

LXXVII

Lame d rd hdl eser

284.

DETROIT

282.

FACADE

283.

ROME.

CHURCH

OF

THE

HOLY

REDEEMER

OF SAN PAOLO FUORI-LE- MURA APSE OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH

BY

BU

285.

ST.

286.

NEW

RNE- JONES

LOUIS. CATHEDRAL. DETAIL YORK. ST. BARTHOLOMEW's.

DETAIL

FRANCE—GERMANY

La Nat

PLATE

s

EN.

iv Nf,

^

4I

e. # x

C Lo

ber

Frit

MON

od

1

Ve

M

Sipe uence tu.

5X

-— CAVE

Nf

LXXVIII

μὰ

ἢ

.

|

^

287.

PARIS.

DETAIL OF MOSAIC BY THE BROTHERS

288.

THE HAGUE.

290. 50

FRANK -AM-MAIN. TOWER eg we4 ζ F 7 NFRAUEN-FRIEDENSKIRCHE

289.

MOSAIC BY THORN-PRIKKER OF THE ot

^

201. 292.

1

|

4

5»

FH Te

MAUMEJEAN

GERMANY.

THE

THREE

WISE

MEN,

BY

EWALD DUELLBERG SS. "BREMEN", MOSAIC IN BALL-ROOM ἢ STOCKHOLM. THE "GOLDEN HALL” BY EINAR FORSETH

«τ

je

-

|

fx) — "^ —

ea A T

do

-

^ μὴ

a

LÀ

,TIME 3

+ thee

—

"Y ve L | eq.

ta QUO

ttr

LXXIX

stom? E or ae?

(e.

.

P. ui

TU.

PLATE

uu .

Je

A

zo

nte

Eod

—

δ.

vemm

€

20 SS Pe en,

PSE rege

"

HW

ea

ir

SS

%

MEL sis

E

"

E

1!

trc

P »Η

ὝΒΡΙΝ Een

VW

293.

295.

ROCHESTER

LONDON,

SAVINGS

BANK

35

UPPER

294.

BROOK

STREET.

PAVEMENT

PAVEMENT BY

BORIS

BY

ANREP.

BORIS

ANREP

NATIONAL

GALLERY

RECENT

296.

NEW YORK. INTERNATIONAL AND TELEGRAPH BUILDING

298.

CINCINNATI.

UNION

300.

NEW

ROCKEFELLER

YORK.

TERMINAL

AMERICAN

MOSAICS

PLATE

TELEPHONE

297.

OTTAWA. METROPOLITAN BUILDING

STATION

299.

NEW

CENTER.

MURAL

YORK.

BUILDING

AN

LIFE

INTERIOR

OF

LXXX

INSURANCE IRVING

TRUST